ORDER : Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J. 1. The instant petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-2, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.696 of 2017 whereby and whereunder two petitions filed for exhibiting CD and Pen Drive and for exhibiting certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by ITC Limited, have been ordered to be marked as Ext.-3. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the instant petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as : The petitioner and Opp. Party are wife and husband respectively and out of the wedlock they were blessed with a son on 19.2.2023 at Jamshedpur. 3. After the marriage, differences arose between the parties to the extent that the Opp. Party has chosen to file an application u/s 13(i) and 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage in which the petitioner has filed her written statement, stating inter alia that she believes in marital adjustment and compromise in marital life and she still wants a peaceful conjugal life for the wellbeing of her minor son, who is suffering from disease pertaining to nervous system and is prone and allergic to cough and cold and requires regular physiotherapy. Despite knowing this fact the Opp. Party, who is having a handsome earning, does not want to spend a single penny either on her or his son. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of giving her best efforts for resuming the conjugal life, she failed and the original matrimonial suit filed by the Opp. Party for divorce proceeded and at the fag end i.e. when the matter was fixed for argument, two petitions have been filed by the Opp. Party u/s 14 of the Family Courts Act, one for exhibiting CD and Pen Drive and second one for exhibiting certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by ITC Ltd. along with its annexures. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner for not allowing the same but the same has been allowed vide order dated 18.09.2023 by the learned Family Court, Jamshedpur without appreciating the grounds stated by the petitioner and the case is fixed for final argument, against which the present petition has been filed. 6. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner for not allowing the same but the same has been allowed vide order dated 18.09.2023 by the learned Family Court, Jamshedpur without appreciating the grounds stated by the petitioner and the case is fixed for final argument, against which the present petition has been filed. 6. It is apparent from the factual aspect that the dispute arising out and going on under the Family Courts Act, 1984, two petitions have been filed for exhibiting CD and Pen Drive and for exhibiting certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by ITC Limited by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The learned court has allowed the said petitions against which the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 7. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the exhibit which has been marked as Ext.3 is without compliance of the requirement as stipulated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Unamended). 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through his submission. 9. This Court, in order to answer the aforesaid ground, needs to refer herein the purport of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as has been enumerated in its preamble which needs to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :- “An Act to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith.” 10. It is evident from the aforesaid preamble that the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been enacted for the expeditious disposal of the matrimonial disputes wherein the provision has been carved out to consider the admissibility of the document as under Section 14 thereof. The Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads hereunder as :- “14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.— A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).” 11. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.— A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).” 11. It needs to refer herein the provision as contained under Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 wherein in order to have the implication of the self-contained provision as under the Act of 1984, Section 20 has been inserted whereby and whereunder the legislation stipulates that the provision of Family Courts Act, 1984 will have the overriding effect. For ready reference, Section 20 reads hereunder as :- “20. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” 12. The provision as contained under Section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 when stipulates a provision that this Act will have an overriding effect over all the Acts, then the question is that where is the applicability of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which is required for the purpose of exhibiting the document pertaining to information and technology. 13. If this Court will accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, then the entire purport of Family Courts Act, 1984 will become redundant and moreover, the Section 20 thereof will also have no meaning. 14. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has got least jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order and the same can only be exercised if there is manifest error which is apparent on the face of record. 15. It needs to refer herein the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vrs. 15. It needs to refer herein the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has been pleased to laid down therein regarding 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 limitless 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. 16. 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 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 normally 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 22. 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. 23. This Court, having discussed the aforesaid legal position and adverting to the factual aspect, has found that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been applied for the purpose of marking exhibit the certificate dated 03.04.2023 issued by ITC Limited as Ext.3 and as such the ground which has been raised in challenging the said order about applicability of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, does not arise. 24. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order needs no interference. 25. Accordingly, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.