The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Article 227 deals with the power of superintendence by the High Court over all subordinate Courts and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227, is not confined to administrative superintendence only but includes the power of judicial review. This Court has to see that the Courts shall not exceed the power that is conferred on it or exercise power based on extraneous material to pass any order and to keep the subordinate courts within its bounds of jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the original suit was filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent no. 1 against the revision petitioner/defendant No.6 and respondents 2 to 8 for recovery of amount on the strength of the promissory note said to have been executed by late Pasala Surya Chandra Rao. At the stage of defendant’s evidence an application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send promissory note along with the admitted signatures for comparison and verification of the Government Handwriting expert. Also, filed an application under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to issue summons to ‘the Registrar, Visakapatnam Registrar Office, Visakapatnam’ for production of Will. However, the trial court dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by this, the present two revision petitions were filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the signature on the promissory note is a forged one, therefore, sending the same to the expert for comparison of the signature with the admitted signature of late Surya Chandra Rao, on Will is necessary.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondents submitted that in the cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2, the execution of the pro note was admitted. It was furthermore submitted that the opinion of the expert is corroborative.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the will was executed 15 years before the execution of the pro note. The Will seems to be in the custody of Sub- Registrar, at Visakhapatnam.
The court furthermore while observing that the opinion of the expert is not conclusive and should rarely be given precedence relied upon the judgments titled Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy, and Sashi Kumar Banerjee Vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee.
The court noted that according to Article 227, the High Court has the authority to supervise all lower courts and tribunals. Article 227 gives the High Court supervisory authority, which encompasses judicial review in addition to administrative control. This Court must ensure that the subordinate courts stay within its jurisdictional boundaries and that the courts do not operate outside the authority granted to it or on the basis of unrelated material in order to issue orders.
The court furthermore noted that the High Court while exercising power under Article 227 can exercise its discretion to interfere in the following circumstances:
(a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously over power.
(b) When refused to exercise jurisdiction.
(c) When an error of law is apparent on the face of record.
(d) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion.
(e) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material.
(f) A patent or flagrant error in procedure.
(g) Order resulting in manifest injustice and
(h) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise.
Based on these considerations, the court thought that there exists no perversity in the order or capricious exercise of power by the Trial Court brook interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the civil revision.
Case Title: Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad V. Ravi Surya Prakash and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subba Reddy Satti
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No: 1500 of 2010
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
