The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, dismissed a writ petition challenging a Civil Court order. Finding no manifest error or grave miscarriage of justice, the Court declined interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1739 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 22.1.2021 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Jaunpur in Case No. 505 of 2008 (Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. Kamlesh Kumar and Another).
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The court below has recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioners, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.
In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.
This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 Hon'ble Supreme Court said:
"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."
A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 :
"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".
The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.
In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the order impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 8.6.2021 A.K.Srivastava
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the order of the Civil Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. MukherjeeReferred¶10
1953 SC 58
Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and anotherReferred¶12
AIR 1954 SC 215 · Who else cites this
Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar MukherjeeReferred¶13
AIR 1951 Cal. 193 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Kumar
Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
