Gujarat High Court
Nilaben Ramshankar Purohit W/O ... vs Rajeshriben Rameshchandra Bhatt on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12685 of 2025
==========================================================
NILABEN RAMSHANKAR PUROHIT W/O RAMESHCHANDRA
PREMSHANKAR BHATT
Versus
RAJESHRIBEN RAMESHCHANDRA BHATT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HJ KARATHIYA(7012) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.J. Karathiya for the
petitioner.
2. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order
or directions quashing and setting aside impugned order dated
03.08.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Rajkot
in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2022 well as as the order dated
21.10.2022 passed by the learned 15 th Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Rajkot below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 96 of 2021;
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition
YOUR LORDSHIPS may be stay implementation operation and
execution of the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned 3rd
Additional District Judge, Rajkot in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2022
well as as the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the learned 15 th
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit
No. 96 of 2021;
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition,
YOUR LORDHSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Respondent herein
to maintain status quo qua property in question;
(D) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought
just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. As far as possible herein after, the parties to this
application referred to as per their original position in the
suit.
The Short Facts of the case.
4. The petitioner herein is original defendant, whereas
respondent is original plaintiff of Regular Civil Suit No. 96 of
2021, pending before Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot. The claim
made by the plaintiff in her suit that she is legally wedded
wife of one late Remeshchandra, who died on 27.04.2021
due to Covid-19 and the defendant erstwhile wife of late
Remeshchandra is trying to disturb her possession of the suit
properties in question. So, the suit is filed seeking
declaration and so also injunction.
4.1 The prayer of appointment of Court Commissioner by
way of application below Exh. 6 in the suit by the plaintiff
came to be rejected. Likewise, an injunction application filed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
by defendant below Exh. 34 with a prayer that plaintiff shall
maintain status quo as regards the suit property i.e.
immovable property also came to be rejected by the trial
Court vide its order dated 21.10.2022. It is reported to this
Court that the aforesaid order rejecting the application filed
below Exh.34 by the defendant is never challenged.
4.2 Thereafter, the trial Court having heard the parties to
the suit, allowed the injunction application so filed by the
plaintiff on 21.10.2022, whereby the defendant was directed
not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.
4.3 Such order of granting injunction carried before the
appellate Court by way of Misc. Civil Appeal no. 42 of 2022
appears to have been filed under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC,
which was dismissed by the appellate Court vide its
judgment and order dated 03.08.2024. Hence, the present
writ application.
Submission of the petitioner-original defendant
5. Learned advocate Mr. Karathiya for the petitioner
would submit that the defendant happens to be legally
wedded wife of one late Rameshchandra and as such, there
is nothing on record to show that there was a valid decree of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
divorce taken place between the defendant with late
Remeshchandra, thus, the claim of plaintiff could not have
been believed by the Courts below. He would further submit
that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court
concurrently though held against the defendant whereby,
granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff having
erroneously comes to the conclusion that status of the
parties can be decided after leading evidence by the parties.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Karathiya for the petitioner
would submit that under the guise of injunction, plaintiff
may sell the suit property to the third parties whereby, it
create multiplicity of proceedings, inasmuch as the
defendant though legally wedded wife and entitled to
inherit the suit properties being class-I legal heirs of late
Rameshchandra as his legally wife, but deprived to get such
suit properties. It is submitted that plaintiff requires to be
directed to maintain status-quo qua suit properties in
question.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Karathiya for the petitioner
would further submit that, as the petitioner has also lost her
son due to Covid-19, her one solace is to obtain the suit
property, being the wife of late Rameshchandra.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
5.3 Making the above submission, learned advocate Mr.
Karathiya would request this Court to entertain the present
writ application.
Point for determination
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
orders impugned passed by the trial Court as well as the
appellate Court are either erroneous, perverse and or contrary
to settle legal position of law or not ?
6. The facts which are observed hereinabove are not in
dispute. It is undisputed that suit property are in possession
of the plaintiff, inasmuch as the petitioner- defendant was
residing with late Rameshchandra since 2008. It is specific
case of the plaintiff that due to marital discord between
defendant and late Rameshchandra, they separated and got
divorce. As such, due to divorce, there was an advertisement
given in Daily Newspaper (Jai Hind) by late Rameshchandra
for remarriage. Thereafter, late Rameshchandra and plaintiff
came into contact, later on got married. Since then till death
of late Rameshchandra, plaintiff resided with him alongwith
son namely Sandip born out of his first wedlock, who also
died in COVID-19 on 29.04.2021. Whereas, late
Rameshchandra died on 27.04.2021 due to COVID-19.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
7. The plaintiff is claiming possession having occupying
the suit properties on the basis of being married with Late
Rameshchandra. To buttress her case, there are
documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff in form of
Aadhar Card, Pan Card and other documents which are
referred by the trial Court as well appellate Court in its
impugned orders. It is even not disputed by defendant that
as on date, most of suit properties be it movable or
immovable are in possession/occupied by plaintiff.
8. Thus, in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and considering the facts that plaintiff is in
possession-occupation of the suit properties, the trial Court
exercised its positive discretion in favour of the plaintiff,
thereby granted injunction as prayed in the injunction
application as filed by plaintiff. As per the order of injunction
granted by the trial Court, the defendant is directed not to
interfere with the possession of the suit properties occupied
by the plaintiff.
9. When such order was carried before the appellate
Court, after analyzing the facts and law, the appellate Court
also of the very same view as taken by the trial Court while
granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, dismissed
the appeal from the order preferred by the defendant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
10. At the same time, it is also requires to be considered
that defendant having filed an independent injunction
application filed below Exh. 34 requesting the trial Court to
direct the plaintiff to maintain status-quo thereby, plaintiff
be directed not to sell suit properties to the third party.
After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide its order dated
21.10.2022 rejected such prayer/ application of defendant
filed below Exh.34 in the suit. As observed, such order
attained finality having not questioned by the defendant.
11. Having heard the learned advocate of the petitioner
and so also after appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the
case, and after going through the orders impugned passed
by the trial Court and appellate Court, I am unable to agree
with any of the submissions so canvassed by the learned
advocate Mr. Karathiya for the petitioner that the orders
impugned in the present writ application, requires any
interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. It would be gainsaid that the courts below have
correctly appreciated the facts of the case and so also
appropriately observed that status of plaintiff i.e. legally
wedded wife of late Rameshchandra can only be ascertained
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
on appreciation of the evidence which may come on record
during course of trial. The view taken by the courts below
would not be so perverse which requires any interference of
this Court inasmuch as, this Court even if have second view,
then also, it cannot and should not substitute the view of the
courts below unless view is either erroneous, perverse,
arbitrary or contrary to any provision of law. This Court
unable to observe anything adverse in the orders so passed
by the trial Court / appellate Court, and not even able to find
any error much less any gross error, which termed as
jurisdictional error on the part of the Courts below, when
passed the impugned orders.
13. At this stage, I would to remind myself scope and
power available to this Court while exercising its power un-
der Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is succinctly
discussed in following two decisions of Honourable Supreme
Court of India.
13.1 First one, in a case of Sameer Suresh Gupta TR PA
Holder vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, reported in 2013 (9) SCC
374, the relevant observation of the aforesaid judgment
reads as under:-
"[6] In our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside be-
cause while deciding the writ petition filed by the respondent the
learned Single Judge ignored the limitations of the High Court's ju-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
risdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The parameters for
exercise of power by the High Court under that Article were consid-
ered by the two Judge Bench of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram
Chander Rai and Ors., 2003 6 SCC 675. After considering various
facets of the issue, the two Judge Bench culled out the following
principles:
(1) Amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from 01-07-2002
in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not af-
fect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the Courts subordinate to the
High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by
the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are
nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to,
certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for cor-
recting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e. when a subordinate Court is
found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction
where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by over-
stepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in fla-
grant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation
of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure speci-
fied, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is
exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of
their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a juris-
diction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction
which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exer-
cised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of
justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court
may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdic-
tion, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless
the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and
apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based
on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and
(ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned
thereby.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e. which can be
perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or
complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning.
Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate
Court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross
or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory juris-
diction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases
where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest
a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care,
caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the
abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pen-
dency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the er-
ror though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at
the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred
there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or super-
visory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow
and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court
may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not cor-
rected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at
a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of jus-
tice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdic-
tion will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-ap-
preciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing in-
ferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a
writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory juris-
diction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by
the High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliter-
ated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or
set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts
but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable
directions so as to guide the subordinate Court as to the manner in
which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court
may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the Court
should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The same question was considered by another Bench in Shalini
Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 338] , and it was held: (SCC pp. 347-49, para
49)
"(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from
a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the
High Court under these two articles is also different.
(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ
petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High
Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the
power of superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and
have been discussed above.
(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power
of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere
with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in ex-
ercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of the
Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative
statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also op-
erate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.
(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of
their power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by
this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the prin-
ciples laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam
Singh [Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215] and the prin-
ciples in Waryam Singh [Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC
215] have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution
Benches and various other decisions of this Court.
(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [Waryam Singh v.
Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215] , followed in subsequent cases, the
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can in-
terfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to
it, 'within the bounds of their authority'.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and
Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not
declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.
(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can
interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there
has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and
Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and mani-
fest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have
been flouted.
(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot
interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because an-
other view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordi-
nate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to
be very sparingly exercised.
(i) The High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227
cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of
the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261
: 1997 SCC (L&S) 577] and therefore abridgment by a constitu-
tional amendment is also very doubtful.
(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate
provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut
down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the
same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment
does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of su-
perintendence under Article 227.
(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable
principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo
motu.
(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the
High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of
this article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the
High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial,
is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the en-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
tire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into
any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be
kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not
come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpol-
luted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the
tribunals and Courts subordinate to the High Court.
(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not
to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should
be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration
of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant
for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under
Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high de-
gree of judicial discipline pointed out above.
(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be coun-
terproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength
and vitality."
(emphasis supplied)
13.2 The second decision in a case of Garment Craft v.
Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-
"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the
view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel.Garment Craft,
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sus-
tained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the lim-
ited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory juris-
diction 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 its own deci-
sion on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior Court or tri-
bunal.[Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar,
(2010) 1 SCC 217 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 69] The jurisdiction exer-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
cised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave
dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental princi-
ples 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.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court
in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [Estralla Rubber v. Dass
Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97] has observed : (SCC pp. 101-
102, para 6)
"6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exam-
ined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The ex-
ercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court
to keep inferior Courts and tribunals within the bounds of their au-
thority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of
them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any un-
limited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong deci-
sions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate
Courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the
orders of the Courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious
dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of
law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave in-
justice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High
Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an
appellate Court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate Court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the
face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the find-
ings of facts of an inferior Court or tribunal, if there is no evidence
at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable per-
son can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the Court or tri-
bunal has come to."
(emphasis supplied)
14. Before parting, it is made clear that the trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12685/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
requires to decide the lis between the parties as per the
evidence coming forth on record without being influenced
by any of the observations so made either by this Court and
or made by the trial Court/ the appellate Court while passing
the orders impugned in the present writ application. If any
request made by the petitioner herein for expedite the
hearing of the suit, the same shall be considered
sympathetically by the trial Court.
Conclusion
15. In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, this
Court not finds any merit in the present writ application,
requires to be rejected, which is hereby rejected.
16. Thus, due to forgoing conclusion, the orders impugned
in the present writ application are hereby confirmed. No
order as to costs.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
SALIM/
