IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.I W.P.1227) /2011 PETITIONERS DEFENDANTS o- ^.^•-tf/ 9<^' A2i^ s lA RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFFS 1. Gajanand s/o Nekrain aged about 35 years. 2. Ishwari s/o Nekram, aged about '2<? ^?...-"" 40 years. Both are resident of Village -Katgi, Tah.- Kasdol, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) Santosh Thawait s/o Firatram, aged about 35 years, r/o Village -Katgi, Tah.- Kasdol, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE COSTITUTION OF INDIA H- ^' -i mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar JVfishra Writ Petition (227) No. 2364/2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Gajanand and another Vereus Santosh Thawait and another Appearance: Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIC'LE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER In a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction the respondentNo.l/plaintifFhad not an-ayed the State of Chhattisgarh as a detendant on account of which the defendants/petitioners raised an objection with regard to non-joinder ofnecessary parties. (2) The plaintiff later on moved three applications under Section 151 ofCPC, under Order 1 Rule 10 ofCPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 ofCPC forjoining the State ofChhattisgarh as a defendant and for amendment in fhe plaint to that effect. (3) By the impugned order the Trial Court has rejected defendants application under Order 1 Rule 3 (b) of CPC for dismissing the suit and at the same time the plaintifTs application forjoining the State of Chhattisgarh as a defendant has been allowed. (4) On perusal ofthe impugned order and the documents annexed withthe writ petition, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order :-s-3^^ .•.sr^-i^.. ^ >-^<^^£%. ^ ^a';^^'"-^ $' /.' '•^^ss'^' 2- l^ does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction which requires to be corrected in exercise ofpowers under Article 227 ofthe Constitirtion oflndia. (5) In the matter of Celma Coelho Peren^ (Ms) and others Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles as to when High Court would be justified in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Relevant paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 33 ofthe report are extracted hereunder: "30. In Bathutmal Rcdchcaid Oswal v. Lajombai R. Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC 858 this Courtheld: ^CCp. 865, para 7) "7. ... Tlw High Court camiot in guise of exercising its jurisdictton underArticle 227 convert itselfmto a court of appeal -when the legislature has not conferred a right ofappeal cmd made the decision of the subordmate court or tribunaljmal onfacts. 31. In State v. Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641 : SCC (Cri) 1545 fhis Court explained the power oftheHigh Court vmkrArticle 227 thus: (SCCpp. 656-57, para 28} "28. Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia yves the High Court the po-wer of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to •which it exercises jurisdicticn. This junsdiction cmmot be lindted or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisory jurisdiction exterids to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of ^ v their aufhoriiy and to seeing that they obey the law. 3 }1 The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends ofjustice. They can be used to interfere even -with an iivterlocutory order. However the po'wer under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difflcult to attribute to an order ofthe High Court, such a saurce ofpower, •when theHigh Court itsetfdoes not m tefnis purport to exercise cmy such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judiclal Superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparmgty and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals withm the bowids of their authority wid not to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it yfould require veiy exceptional circumstances to •warrant interference wvkr Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia smce the power of superintendence was not nieanl to circwnvent statutory law. It is settled law that the Jurlsdiction imder Artick 227 could not be exercised 'as the cloak ofan appeal in disguise '." 32. The cforesaid two decisions cmdfe'w other decisions, namety, Chcmdavarkar Slta Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117 cnd Rcmjeet Sing}i v. Ravi Prakdsh, (2004) 3 SCC 682 came to be considered by this Court in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak RajBajcg, (2008) 9SCC I andthis Cowtheld: (TilakRqj case, (2008) 9SCC 1, SCCpp. 10-11, para 38) 38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 cmd 227 are very wide and extensive ^- °f over all courts and tribunals th'cwghouf the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a caurt of appeal or a court oferror. It canneither revie'w nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a mbordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or, even oflaw and to substttute its, o-wn decision for that ofthe inferior court or tribwial. The pcrwers are requiredto be exercised niost sparingly and aizly in appropriate cases m order to keep the subordinate cowts and inferior tribunab •within the hmitsoflaw." 33. In light of the qforesaid legal position conceming jurisdiction oftheHigh Court imderArticle 227, which the High Cmtrtfailed to keep m mind, it must be held that m the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded by the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Admmistrative Tribwicd, the High Court was notjustrfted in mterfering with the concurrent orders ofeviction based on the gmivid ofsitb-lettmg in exercise ofitspower under Article 227 ofthe Constitulion oflndia." (6) The present case does not involve any such legal issue which falls within the ambit of law laid down by the Supreme Court for interference under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. (7) Consequently, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. -—— Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge °^'