Shanti Dhawan vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
1997 Latest Caselaw 411 Del

JUDGMENT

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

(1) By the impugned order the Appellate Authority has admitted the appeal and stayed the petitioner's eviction from the property in question subject to his depositing the amount of damages as assessed by the Estate Officer within two months from the date of the order. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has committed a patent illegality in granting conditional stay against the petitioner's eviction from the property in question. It has to be borne in mind that the superintending function of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is to compel the exercise of Judicial Authority on the subject, and not beyond it; to define the subject by the elements comprising it, and by reference to the prescribed, or intended, external conditions; and to exact obedience to the law of procedure in gathering the materials for adjudication, and in giving effect to them. It is no part of that function to substitute the discretion of the superintending Court for that of the Court superintended, in matters assigned by the Legislature to the cognizance of the latter.

(2) It is well settled that the granting of stay is purely within the discretion of the Appellate Court. In the instant case, the property in question was not allotted to the petitioner and prima facie the petitioner has no right to occupy the building in question without allotment. Yet the Appellate Court in its discretion granted stay against the petitioner's eviction from the building in question. In my opinion the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.