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
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
documents 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
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
(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:-
"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
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
