ORDER : Heard Shri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddhartha Srivastava and Shri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. The applicant invoking the supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India submits that the court below has committed material illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction. 3. The facts in brief are that an original suit no. 982 of 2001 was filed on 20.8.2001 for declaration that the sale deed dated 2.8.2001 executed in favour of the defendant with regard to plot no. 6/2/72 situated in Vaishali, Ghaziabad, registered on 3.8.2001 is a forged and void document. The respondent no.3 Ramphool was impleaded as defendant. The plaint case is that from the inspection of the office record of Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad, it transpired that the sale deed executed on 2.8.2001 does not contain the signature of the executor i.e. Secretary of Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad and the signatures existing therein are forged. A First Information Report has also been lodged for forgery of the document. It is averred that the original record pertaining to the transaction is also misplaced. 4. Shri Ramphool claims to be power of attorney holder of Indra Mohan Pal, on the basis of a registered deed executed on 3.4.2001. The said power of attorney authorised Ramphool to sign vakalatnama, appoint advocates and do Parivi of cases in the courts wherever any dispute arises with regard to plot no. 6/2/72 Vaishali, Ghaziabad Tehsil and District Ghaziabad, i.e. suit property. The deed of power of attorney further mentions that whatever the rights of the executor are there in the property whether specifically mentioned or not, all those rights would vest in the power of attorney holder and any act of the power of attorney holder would be admissible to the executor Indra Mohan Pal. A perusal of the sale deed dated 2.8.2001 further indicates that the names of both Indra Mohan Pal and Ramphool have been mentioned as vendees of the property. 5. A perusal of the sale deed dated 2.8.2001 further indicates that the names of both Indra Mohan Pal and Ramphool have been mentioned as vendees of the property. 5. The plaintiff had moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 , Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 C.P.C. before the court below with the prayer that in the cause tittle of the plaint certain mistakes have crept in and Ramphool has wrongly been impleaded as defendant in his individual capacity, whereas he ought to have been impleaded as power of attorney holder of Indra Mohan Pal. This application was contested by the defendant Ramphool. The court below had rejected this application by order dated 28.2.2015 and the revision filed before the District Judge, Ghaziabad was also dismissed. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the prayer in the application no. 109 Ka was only to make correction in the description of the defendant in the cause title. The mistake was bona fide as name of Ramphool has been mentioned as vendee in the sale deed whereas in the written statement, defendant Ramphool had disclosed that a registered power of attorney had been executed in his favour by Indra Mohan Pal, who was the actual purchaser of the suit property. The plot was originally allotted to Indra Mohan Pal and sale consideration was paid by him. The defendant Ramphool has also filed counter claim claiming his right independent to that of Indra Mohan Pal on the basis of registered power of attorney dated 3.4.2001 and a registered agreement for sale dated 3.4.2001. The stand taken by him in written statement is that he is owner in actual possession of the suit property as power of attorney holder and has a right to transfer the suit property on the basis of the agreement dated 3.4.2001. 7. The relief sought in the counter claim is that a sale deed may be executed by the court in his favour or in the alternative a fresh sale deed may be executed in the name of Indra Mohan Pal through him, in the event, the sale deed dated 3.8.2001 is declared null and void. 8. Since Ramphool had contested the suit as power of attorney holder of Indra Mohan Pal, the plaintiff could not realise that there was some defect in the cause title. 8. Since Ramphool had contested the suit as power of attorney holder of Indra Mohan Pal, the plaintiff could not realise that there was some defect in the cause title. At the time of preparation of evidence, the counsel for the plaintiff realised the mistake and, therefore, moved an application for making correction in the cause title by mentioning " Ramphool power of attorney holder of Indra Mohan Pal".The application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. was contested by the defendant on the ground that the suit for cancellation of sale deed against Indra Mohan Pal has become time barred as he is sought to be added as the defendant. Further certain rights have accrued in his favour, which cannot be taken away by way of amendment of plaint. 9. The appellant's contention is that the court below had erred in rejecting the application on the ground of delay and further that the suit for cancellation of sale deed against Indra Mohan Pal has become time barred. It is a case where the decree of declaration of sale deed as null and void has been sought on the ground of fraud. Ramphool was the only signatory of the sale deed as power of attorney holder and his name has been mentioned therein with Indra Mohan Pal as vendee. Being power of attorney holder, he has a right to contest the suit and defend the execution of the sale deed on 2.8.2001 on behalf of Indra Mohan Pal. The power of attorney executed on 3.4.2001 gives right to Ramphool to contest the matter. Whatever independent rights Ramphool is claiming in the suit property are through Indra Mohan Pal only. Merely because name of Indra Mohan Pal has not been mentioned in the cause title or Ramphool has not been described as his power of attorney would not mean that the suit for cancellation of sale deed would fail. 10. The courts below has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the suit against the proposed defendant Indra Mohan Pal is barred by time or the impleadment is affected by law of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments in Kurapati Venkata Mallayya and another v. Thondepu Ramaswami and Co. 10. The courts below has erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the suit against the proposed defendant Indra Mohan Pal is barred by time or the impleadment is affected by law of limitation. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments in Kurapati Venkata Mallayya and another v. Thondepu Ramaswami and Co. and another, AIR 1964 SC 818 , Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969, SC 1267 and Kuldeep Kumar Dubey v. Ramesh Chandra Goyal, AIR 2015 SC, 1135 to submit that in a case of mis-description of the parties it is open for the court to allow the amendment of plaint at any time and the question of limitation would not arise in such a case. 11. The contention is that the order passed by the revisional court is devoid of reasons and thus both the courts below have failed in exercise of their jurisdiction vested in law. 12. Placing reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in Jai Singh and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, (2010) 9 SCC 385 : (2010 AIR SCW 5968) and in Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another v. Praveen Kumar Singh AIR 2006(SC) 1474, submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the fact situation of the instant case, this court may exercise its power of Superintendence as there has been patent perversity in the orders of the courts below, which had resulted in gross and manifest failure of justice and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. 13. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the suit for cancellation of sale deed without impleading actual vendee cannot be maintained. Neither the vendee nor the power of attorney have been impleaded whereas Ramphool has been impleaded in his individual capacity. The suit is at the stage of evidence. The written statement and counter claim was filed in the year 2004 and even replication was filed by the applicant in the year 2004 itself. There is no explanation of the applicant for delay in filing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of vendee. The impleadment is hit by law of limitation as suit against the Indra Mohan Pal would be barred under the Limitation Act. There is no explanation of the applicant for delay in filing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment of vendee. The impleadment is hit by law of limitation as suit against the Indra Mohan Pal would be barred under the Limitation Act. A futile amendment was rightly rejected by the court below, no case has been made out for bona fide mistake as pleaded by the applicant. The necessary parties have not been impleaded and hence the suit will fail. The amendment cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna, which touches the merits of the case. 14. Further submission is that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are in the nature of superintendence of the High Court over its subordinate judiciary. In exercise of its power of superintendence the court cannot interfere to correct the mere error of law or fact or just because another view from that of the one taken by the courts subordinate to it is a possible view. The jurisdiction has to be very sparingly used. The exercise of judicial intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised in granting relief for individual case but should be directed for promotion of public confidence of justice in larger interest. Such exercise of power is subject to high degree of judicial discipline as has been held in the case of Shalini Shaym Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 ( 8) SCC 329 : (2010 AIR SCW 6387. 15. Placing reliance upon the judgements of Apex Court in Ramprasad Dagaduram v. Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala and others, AIR 1967 (SC) 278 , Ugar Ahir and others v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277 , Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others (2012) 8 SCC 384 , and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors P. Ltd. (2013) SCC (5) 397 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2389 ), the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the application for amendment under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC moved after much delay is to be rejected subject to law of Limitation. The application was filed with undue delay and the courts below are fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment. 16. The application was filed with undue delay and the courts below are fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment. 16. The addition of Indra Mohan Pal as defendant in the suit would require issuing fresh notices to him and suit would be relegated to its first stage, whereas it was at the stage of evidence when the application was moved. The contention of the applicant that there was any bona fide mistake or it was a case of mis-description in the cause title is not acceptable. 17. Having regard to the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties before dealing with the controversy in hand, the principles formulated by the Apex Court to be followed in exercise of High Courts' jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in paragraph-49 of "Shalini Shyam Shetty" (Supra) are apposite:- "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 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 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 & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 : ( AIR 1997 SC 1125 ) 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 & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 : ( AIR 1997 SC 1125 ) 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 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. 18. 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. 18. In the facts of the present case, the sale deed dated 2.8.2001 has been challenged on the ground of fraud committed with the connivance of the officials of Ghaziabad Development Authority. The defendant Ramphool is the signatory of the sale deed and his name has been mentioned as vendee in the sale deed dated 2.8.2001. These facts are evident from the photocopy of the sale deed appended with the record of this petition. In the written statement Ramphool has described himself as power of attorney holder of Indra Mohan Pal. The power of attorney given on 4.4.2001 authorises Ramphool to contest the suit on behalf of Indra Mohan Pal, to file affidavits, applications etc. with regard to the property which was the subject matter of sale i.e. suit property. Shri Ramphool is contesting the suit for declaration of sale deed as void documents as power of attorney on behalf of Indra Mohan Pal. In the written statement he has claimed that on the basis of registered power of attorney executed in his name he is owner in possession of the suit property and has all powers to take a decision in relation to the suit property, even to alienate it. Indra Mohan Pal stated to have applied for allotment and paid the sale consideration for execution of the sale deed. The sale deed does not bear the signature of Indra Mohan Pal. It only contains the name of Indra Mohan Pal as vendee. 19. In this scenario the suit for declaration of the sale deed as null and void can not fail only because in the cause title of the plaint, the name of Indra Mohan Pal has been mentioned or Ramphool has not been described as his power of attorney. It appears that Ramphool being a signatory and his name having been mentioned as vendee in the sale deed, has been impleaded as defendant by mistake in his own name. It appears that Ramphool being a signatory and his name having been mentioned as vendee in the sale deed, has been impleaded as defendant by mistake in his own name. The correction which is being sought by the plaintiff by moving the application under Order 1, Rule 10 would not change the nature of controversy nor would create or take away any right of the contesting parties rather the correction would make the position clear that Ramphool was the power of attorney holder of Indra Mohan Pal, who alleged to have paid sale consideration and in whose name the draw of lots was finalised. In order to examine the allegations of fraud in execution of the sale deed, the stand of Indra Mohan Pal is all the more necessary. 20. It is not disputed that the suit for declaration of the sale deed as null and void has been filed well in time and Ramphool the defendant has authority to contest the suit even on behalf of Indra Mohan Pal being his registered power of attorney. The independent claim of Ramphool, the defendant, if any, who had contested the application for impleadment in view of his pleading in the counter claim is also based upon the power of attorney of Indra Mohan Pal. Thus on these admitted facts the defect pointed out is only of a formal nature and is not in any manner effecting the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court. Such irregularities can be corrected by the Courts at any stage. 21. This is a case of mis-description of the parties and would not effect the maintainability of the suit nor in any manner would cause prejudice to the defendant, particularly the contesting defendant Ramphool, as such question of limitation does not arise in the instant case. The court below had failed to exercise its jurisdiction and the order of rejection of the application for impleadment had resulted in gross and manifest failure of justice, and the fundamental principles of law have been violated. 22. This Court, therefore find it a fit case for exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 23. 22. This Court, therefore find it a fit case for exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 23. Having regard to the law discussed herein above and in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the ends of justice, application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 and section 151 C.P.C. for making correction in the description of the defendant is allowed. The cause title of the suit be amended by adding "Shri Indar Mohan Pal son of P.L. Budh, resident of H-41, Nai Govind Puri, New Delhi through Ramphool power of attorney holder" as defendant. 24. Ramphool the defendant is contesting the suit on the basis of registered power of attorney on behalf of Indra Mohan Pal and has filed written statement. The independent rights claimed by him in the counter claim are also through Indra Mohan Pal and hence the defence of Indra Mohan Pal, whatever could be has been taken care of by the power of attorney holder and, therefore, in the opinion of the court, no fresh notice is required to be issued to Indra Mohan Pal. However, in order to put the record straight and with a view to give him opportunity to place his defence, let a notice be issued to Indra Mohan Pal who may file his pleading and evidence if so advised. The court below shall also consider the same while deciding the suit. The orders dated 28.2.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) court no.1 Ghaziabad in original suit no. 982 of 2001 and the order dated 17.3.2015 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 201 of 2015 are set aside. The petition is allowed. Petition allowed.