IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13887 of 2010 1. RAMESH PODDAR @ RAMESH KUMAR PODDAR S/O LATE RAM GOPAL PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 2. SUSHIL KUMAR PODDAR S/O LATE RAM GOPAL PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O LATE RAM AUTAR PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 2. MURALI PODDAR S/O LATE RAM AUTAR PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 3. MURARI PODDAR S/O LATE RAM AUTAR PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 4. BABITA DEVI W/O LATE SANJAY PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 5. ADITI PODDAR D/O LATE SANJAY PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 6. ADIGYA PODDAR D/O LATE SANJAY PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 7. VISHWANATH PODDAR S/O LATE SRI RADHA KRISHNA PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. JAGDISH PODDAR S/O LATE SRI RADHA KRISHNA PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 9. SANTOSH PODDAR S/O LATE SRI RADHA KRISHNA PODDAR R/O MOHALLA- LAL BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN with CWJC No.16880 of 2010 RAMESH PODDAR @ RAMESH KR.PODD . Versus SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS . ----------- 3/ 11/02/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents in both the applications. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 15.1.2008 alleging material irregularity by not appreciating that the petitioners had only said that they do not want to lead oral evidence any more but that they never said that they do not wish to lead documentary evidence. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.13887/10 submits that there was no reason for the court not to grant reasonable adjournment to enable the petitioner to obtain orders from this Court on an appropriate application with regard to order dated 12.1.2008. The haste with which the trial court has proceeded on 14.1.2008 and 15.1.2008 displays abdication of jurisdiction and material irregularity derailing justice. All that the petitioners desired was to produce certain additional documentary evidence with regard to certain ledgers and which he in fact produced notwithstanding which the prayer was rejected on 12.1.2008. Like submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.1880/10 that the order dated 12.1.2008 suffers from material irregularity. By the impugned order the trial court has rejected the petitioners’ application to lead documentary evidence. The impugned order dated 12.1.2008 notices the leave sought to produce the ledgers for the years- 1983-84 as evidence. The trial court in fairness to the petitioner also examined the ledger to satisfy itself of the need for allowing the evidence to be produced at such a belated stage when the evidence of the petitioner was continuing since 6.11.1998 and had already been closed. - 3 - In the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners to produce the additional documentary evidence was held to be an afterthought, much belated, hindering the progress of the trial. Unfortunately, this Court does not approve of the narration contained in the last few lines of the order of the manner in which the petitioner has been admonished by the trial court. The litigation has commenced in the year- 1984. Twenty seven years later it is yet to see the light of the day. The order also notices that no plausible or reasonable explanation whatsoever had been mentioned in the application seeking to produce such documentary evidence at such a belated stage which in any event appeared suspicious. In (2003) 6 SCC 675 ( Surya Dev Rai vs. Ramchander Rai) cautioning with regard to the exercise of powers under Article-227 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.24 has observed as follows:- “24. The difference between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was well brought out in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai12. Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this article to tribunals as well. - 4 - Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.” In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in these applications. They are accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)