Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 610 (RAJ)

Soni Devi (Dead) Thro’ LR’s v. Chatara Ram

2013-03-21

VINEET KOTHARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - defendant No. 1, Smt. Soni Devi, who is now represented by her legal representatives, assailing the order dated 6.10.2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Jalore in Civil Misc. Case No. 61 of 2009, Chatra Ram v. Soni Devi , whereby the learned Court below while exercising powers under Section 151 C.P.C., directed the parties to maintain status quo as there was a dispute with regard to correctness of the "Patta" issued in favour of petitioner - defendant. 3. Mr. Amit Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, LR's of Soni Devi, submitted that in fact while dismissing the temporary injunction application, still in the purported exercise of powers under Section 151 C.P.C., the learned trial Court has granted status quo which it could not do. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the "Patta" in question issued in favour of defendant, Soni Devi had already been cancelled by the A.D.M. Jalore on 6.1.2007, however, since the registered "Patta" or Conveyance could not be cancelled by 'him, the plaintiffs, therefore, filed the present suit. 5. Be that as it may, in the considered opinion of this Court, writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is narrow and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference as the reasons assigned by the learned Court that since the land in question belonged to Gram Panchayat, and the "Patta" in question was issued in favour of defendant, which became the subject matter of the present lis pending in the trial Court, therefore, the status quo deserves to be granted. 6. If the defendants wanted to raise any construction, or wanted to change the status of the land, it was open for them to apply to the trial Court by appropriate application. The interlocutory order of this nature passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court in the case of Gurmit Pal v. M/s. Ram Kishan Rajbaks, S.B.S.C.W.P. No. 6975 of 2011, decided on 24.8.2011 has held as under: "4. The interlocutory order of this nature passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court in the case of Gurmit Pal v. M/s. Ram Kishan Rajbaks, S.B.S.C.W.P. No. 6975 of 2011, decided on 24.8.2011 has held as under: "4. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concerned with the increasing interference with the orders of subordinate Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter arising between the landlord and tenant against the findings of decree of eviction passed against the defendant at two forums against dismissal of writ petition by the High Court filed by the defendant tenant in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , reiterating legal position right from the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Waryam Singh v. Amarnath reported in AIR 1954 SC 215 , which was followed in large number of decisions subsequently also, reiterated in para 49, the guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction by High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as under: "49. 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 of 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. 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. (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 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 & Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. 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 & 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. (1) 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 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." 5. 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." 5. In clause (g) of the aforesaid guidelines, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunal or 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. Upping the ante higher in clause (n), the Hon'ble Apex Court further said that this reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention even though unfettered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in clause (o) further held that an improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. 6. The said judgment was further followed by different bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 and 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 it's jurisdiction. 7. 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 it's jurisdiction. 7. Therefore, with this kind of parameters and guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that the contention raised in the present case by the plaintiff-petitioner in the money recovery suit that the burden of main issue ought to have been kept on the defendant is not only misconceived and deserves rejection, but for petty amount of 7 8,000/- and odd, if the plaintiff has made two rounds upto this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is a matter of grave concern of this Court and such frequent invoking of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be strongly checked. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the opposite party as well as the trial Court." 7. Accordingly, the present writ filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned trial Court below forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******