ORDER : 1. Shri Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners Commissioner, Municipal Corporation along with three others before this Court have filed this present petition against the order dated 3-4-2014 passed by the learned District Judge Dewas. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the sole respondent has filed a civil suit claiming damages as the house was demolished by certain persons. An application was preferred on behalf of the defendants stating that in light of section 402 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, no civil suit is maintainable as the officers of the Municipal Corporation are enjoying immunity for any act done by them in good faith. The order passed by the trial Court reflects that the plaintiff was directed by the trial Court on 5-4-2010 to implead the State of Madhya Pradesh as one of the respondents and the same has been done. The order further reflects that there is an allegation in the plaint that without any notice the Municipal Corporation has demolished the house of the respondent and the officers have forged certain documents in order to take shelter of section 402 of the Act of 1956. Learned District Judge has observed that the aforesaid objection can be decided after framing of issues and after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. 4. This Court is in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge. The aforesaid ground can certainly be taken as a ground in the written statement and after framing the issues, the same can always be answered by the trial Court. The learned District Judge, as the plaintiff has made a categoric allegation in respect of the notices issued by the Corporation and other orders passed by the Corporation that they are forged and fabricated orders, has rightly passed the order dated 3-4-2014. The order passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any patent illegality nor any jurisdiction error has been committed by the trial Court while passing the aforesaid order. The Apex Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (8) SCC 329 in Paragraph No. 49 has held as under:- “49. The order passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any patent illegality nor any jurisdiction error has been committed by the trial Court while passing the aforesaid order. The Apex Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 (8) SCC 329 in Paragraph No. 49 has held 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 maybe 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 cannot 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 and 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. (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. (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 vs. Union of India and Others, (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. 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 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 may 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. This Court keeping in view the aforesaid, as the order passed by the learned District Judge does not suffer from any patent illegality nor any jurisdictional error has been committed while passing the order, is of the considered opinion that no case for interference in the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The admission is declined.