Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 58 (JHR)

Jitendra Prasad Mahto v. Nirmal Mahto

2024-01-12

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) : 1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.11.2013 and 18.04.2023 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-VIII, Hazaribag in Title Suit No.28 of 2008 namely, “Certificate of Auction Sale of Land”, whereby and whereunder, the petition was filed dated 17.11.2022 praying therein for marking one document as contained in serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009 exhibited. 2. The said petition has been rejected vide impugned order against which the present petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the document as contained in serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009 could not be marked as exhibit which is the certified copy of the auction certificate in case no.508/1918-19 and as such, the said document is having bearing in deciding the said suit and as such, the prayer has been made to mark the said document as exhibit. 4. The plaintiff to the suit has seriously objected by placing the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.11.2013, whereby and whereunder, the document as contained in the list dated 12.08.2009 as under serial no.5 and 6 has been sought to be marked as exhibit but the said petition filed vide petition dated 10.09.2012. 5. The said petition was partly allowed for marking the document at serial no.6 as exhibit while rejected for the document at serial no.5 vide the aforesaid order but the petitioner herein, the defendant to the suit did not challenge the said order before the Higher Court and consequently, the said prayer has been made, therefore, the prayer made in the petition dated 17.11.2022 cannot be said to be proper and is not fit to be allowed. 6. Learned trial Court, on appreciating the rival submission made on behalf of the parties, has rejected the petition dated 17.11.2022, against which, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. 6. Learned trial Court, on appreciating the rival submission made on behalf of the parties, has rejected the petition dated 17.11.2022, against which, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who was the defendant to the suit was in bonafide impression that while partly allowing the petition dated 12.08.2009 by which the document no.6 was allowed to be marked as exhibit has thought that the document in serial no.5 has also been allowed to be marked, therefore, it was not thought of challenging the said order, hence, there is bonafide mistake and hence, the petition has been filed but the learned trial Court, without appreciating the aforesaid fact has rejected the said petition, therefore, the present petition. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material available on record as also considered the order impugned. 9. The admitted fact herein is that as per the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as also what this court has gathered from the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the two documents in the list dated 12.08.2009 as under serial no.5 and 6 had been sought to be marked exhibited by filing petition on 10.09.2012. 10. The said petition was partly allowed vide order dated 29.11.2013, by which, the document at serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009 was allowed but marking of document in serial no.5 has not been allowed. 11. It is the further admitted fact that the order dated 29.11.2013 has never been challenged by the petitioner before the higher forum but again the petition was filed on 17.11.2022 seeking therein the prayer to mark the document in serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009. 12. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the marking of the document as exhibit at serial no.5 since has been rejected vide order dated 29.11.2013 and the same has not been challenged before the Higher Forum, hence, the same prayer which has already been set at rest cannot be said to be allowed and accordingly, rejected the said petition. 13. 13. This petition has been filed under the provision of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is settled position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has got limited jurisdiction as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein, it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. i. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been; (a)An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or (b)gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals. ii. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141 , wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. iii. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. iv. iii. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. iv. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. v. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made. vi. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 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 its authority, in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the 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. vii. 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. vii. 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. 14. It is evident from the judgment as has been referred hereinabove that the Court exercising the supervisory power as under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is only to see error apparent on the face of record or if the order has been passed without any jurisdiction. 15. This Court placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment and coming back to the impugned order, has found what has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and considering the admitted fact that the prayer which has been sought to be allowed vide petition dated 17.11.2022 since has already dealt with by rejecting the same which has attained its finality having not been challenged after lapse of period of 10 years. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground, the petition dated 17.11.2022 has been rejected, which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error apparent on the face of record. 16. In the result, the instant petition fails and is dismissed.