In an application under Article 227, the High Court refused to interfere with a trial court order dismissing a submission to frame additional issues. The Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error and dismissed the writ petition in limine.
The writ petition and the stay application are dismissed.
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.
// 1 //
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8987/2007 With S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.967/2007
Pratap S/o Madan Lal and Another Versus Murti Khobra Nath Bhairo through Khobra Nath Bhairo Trust Committee and Another
Date of Order ::: 03.09.2008
Present
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain
Shri Gajendra Singh Rathore, Counsel for petitioners
:- By the Court
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners.
The defendant-petitioners filed an application in the trial court under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC on 18th March, 2005 to frame ten issues, as mentioned in the application. The trial court disposed of the application vide order dated 27th July, 2006 by framing two issues, as mentioned in the order. Thereafter the defendant-petitioners moved another application for review of the order dated 27th July, 2006 with a prayer to frame some additional issues more. The trial court rejected the application for review vide order dated 12th September, 2007, which is under
// 2 //
challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendants.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application and, after considering the same, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte – AIR 1975 SC 1297, held that the High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with finding of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim – AIR 1984 SC 38, held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordignly dismissed in limine.
// 3 //
Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed.
(Narendra Kumar Jain) J.
//Jaiman//
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's order refusing to frame additional issues under Article 227.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the review application for framing issues exhibits illegality or jurisdictional error.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. TarteReferred¶17
AIR 1975 SC 1297 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. MustaqimReferred¶17
AIR 1984 SC 38 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pratap S/o Madan Lal and Another
Murti Khobra Nath Bhairo through Khobra Nath Bhairo Trust Committee and Another
Narendra Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
