Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayan Lal vs Mangi Lal & Ors on 4 July, 2013
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/20103
Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Order dt: 04/07/2013
1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/2013
Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Date of Order ::: 04th July, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. Deelip Kawadia, for the petitioner-plaintiff.
Mr. Vikas Balia &
Mr. Hemant Balani, for the respondents-defendants.
--
BY THE COURT:
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC seeking to produce 'Patta' of one neighbourer, namely, Amra Gadri, which according to plaintiff was supplied to the petitioner by one Baluram Lohar, only on 30.08.2012 during the pendency of the present suit between the plaintiff, Narayan Lal and defendants, Mangi Lal and others.
2. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that since the defendants had claimed that the 'Patta' issued in favour of Amra Gadri was issued later than the 'Patta' issued in favour of the defendant by the Gram Panchayat;
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/20103 Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Order dt: 04/07/2013 2/7 whereas the said 'Patta' was granted at a prior point of time, therefore, the relevance of the 'Patta' of Amra Gadri, cannot be disputed and the version given by the defendant was falsified and at the stage of rebuttal evidence, the learned trial court ought to have allowed to produce the said 'Patta', however, the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application of the plaintiff/petitioner under O.7 R. 14(3) CPC. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, Mr. Vikas Balia, opposed these submissions.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that both the parties are admitting the neighbourhood of Amra Gadri on the western side of the disputed plot of land, over which both the rival parties are laying their respective claims. The production of 'Patta' issued in favour of Amra Gadri, cannot be said to be of much relevance in the present suit and that too production of the same at the belated stage of trial could not have been permitted as the same would have unnecessarily delayed the trial. The interlocutory order passed by the learned trial court in this regard cannot be said to be resulting in any serious mis-carriage of justice and the same does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of which is very limited.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shettey (supra) has held that the scope of interference with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/20103 Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Order dt: 04/07/2013 3/7 the interlocutory orders passed by the learned trial court is very limited and unless there is a glaring mistake or mis-carriage of justice in the orders passed by the courts below, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, cannot be invoked to correct even it were any error here or there in the interlocutory orders. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: -
"62. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:
(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 have been discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/20103 Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Order dt: 04/07/2013 4/7
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'.
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/20103 Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Order dt: 04/07/2013 5/7 very sparingly exercised.
(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article
227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/20103 Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Order dt: 04/07/2013 6/7 disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.
63. In the facts of the present case we find that the petition has been entertained as a writ petition in a dispute between landlord and tenant amongst private parties.
64. It is well settled that a writ petition is a remedy in public law which may be filed by any person but the main respondent should be either Government, Governmental agencies or a State or instrumentalities of a State within the meaning of Article 12. Private individuals cannot be equated with State or instrumentalities of the State. All the respondents in a writ petition cannot be private parties. But private S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3422/20103 Narayan Lal Vs. Mangi Lal & Ors.
Order dt: 04/07/2013 7/7 parties acting in collusion with State can be respondents in a writ petition. Under the phraseology of Article 226 , High Court can issue writ to any person, but the person against whom writ will be issued must have some statutory or public duty to perform."
6. In the case of Jai Singh & Ors. (supra), in para 15 thereof, the Hon'ble Apex Court uses the words "the exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a "bull in a china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the writ petition of the plaintiff/petitioner, is found to be devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the learned court below forthwith.
(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
DJ/-
12