Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ghura Components Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Vaishali Flouring Pvt. Ltd. on 15 September, 2015
1
W.P. No.7285/2014
15.9.2015
Shri O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri S.K. Gangwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant in the suit challenging the order of the trial Court dated 3.9.2014 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the CPC as also another application under Order 8 Rule 3.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset has submitted that the petitioner is not challenging the part of the order dated 3.9.2014, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the CPC is rejected and is confining the challenge to rejection of the application under Order 8 Rule 3 of the CPC.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 8 Rule 3 of the CPC. The suit has reached at the final stage and is fixed for final arguments. By the said application under Order 8 Rule 3 of the CPC, the petitioner wanted to file the report of the handwriting expert. The trial Court has noted that earlier the petitioner had sought permission to examine the document through the handwriting expert Yogita Singh. The said prayer was rejected by order dated 3.2.2014 against which the 2 writ petition was also dismissed by order dated 30.4.2015. Now the petitioner without permission and that too on the basis of photocopy of the documents, has submitted the report of Yogita Singh. The trial Court has rightly noted that the report obtained on the basis of the photocopy of the documents cannot be accepted, especially when the earlier request was rejected. That apart the petitioner has not questioned the order of the trial Court passed under Section 151 of the CPC for calling Yogita Singh as witness, therefore, taking the report on record will be of no consequence at this stage. The order of the trial Court does not suffer from any patent illegality.
Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another reported in 2010(9) SCC 385 while considering the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, has held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok