Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs Satya Devi on 24 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 498 of 2024
Decided on: 24.08.2024
____________________________________________________
Keshav Chand ........... petitioner
.
Versus
Satya Devi ..........respondent
____________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate.
For the respondent : Nemo.
____________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record appended alongwith the present petition as well as the impugned order.
2. By virtue of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby an application filed by the present petitioner i.e. defendant before the Trial Court under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC has been dismissed.
3. In terms of Order 8 Rule 1-A, where a defendant basis his defence upon documents or relies upon any documents in his possession then he is required to enter such 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:27 :::CIS 2documents in a list to be filed alongwith the written statement and at the same time produce such documents mentioned in the list alongwith the written statement. However, in terms of Order 8 .
Rule-1A (3), a document which ought to be produced in Court but if not produced then the same can be brought on record with the leave of the Court.
4. In the case at hand, it is evident that documents sought to be produced by virtue of an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) were in existence prior to the suit being filed.
However, the same were not produced alongwith the written statement. Subsequent thereto, issues were framed and evidence were led by the plaintiff/respondent in the case at hand. The present petitioner was granted opportunity to lead the evidence as a defendant in the Trial Court on 16.04.2023, 04.05.2023, 17,08.2023 and 19.10.2023. Despite having being granted aforesaid opportunities, the present petitioner/defendant before the Trial Court did not produce the documents as have been sought to be produced alongwith the application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC.
5. The reasons cited in the application for non-
production of record, have been found to be wholly incorrect by the trial Court. In this respect, it has been stated in the application that the documents had been handed over to the counsel, however, the same had not been produced on record by the ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:27 :::CIS 3 counsel. The learned Trial Court on the perusal of the record found out that since 12th April, 2018, the present petitioner/defendant before the Trial Court was being represented .
by the same counsel.
6. It has been correctly noted by the trial Court that six years have elapsed since the present counsel had been representing the petitioner/defendant before the Trial Court.
Despite six years, the documents now sought to be produced were not brought on record on an earlier occasion. Conspicuous by absence in the application filed for brining on record the documents is the relevance of the same to the lis in the case at hand.
7. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:-
"227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may--
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:27 :::CIS 4
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to .
be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."
8. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
(i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
& another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:-
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision."
(iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:27 :::CIS 5"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court .
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice."
9. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice.
10. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:27 :::CIS 6 India. The present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of.
.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
August 24, 2024
tarun
r to
::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2024 20:29:27 :::CIS