Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deepan Kumar Hastir And Others vs Sampat Kumar And Others on 27 August, 2024
1
( 2024:HHC:7431 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.470 of 2024
.
Date of Decision : 27.08.2024
Deepan Kumar Hastir and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
Sampat Kumar and others ......Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioners : Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Nemo.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the pleadings
appended along-with the present petition and the impugned order.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking
setting aside impugned order dated 18.07.2024, passed by learned Additional
District Judge (C.B.I. Court), Shimla, District Shimla, in C.M.A. No.830/2024 in
Case No.54-S/6 of 2024, whereby, an application filed by the petitioners under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to amend the written statement to
the counter claim, was dismissed. The said application had been filed in the
appellate Court.
3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:-
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
( 2024:HHC:7431 )
"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."
4. 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:-
( 2024:HHC:7431 )
"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 re-appreciate, 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
( 2024:HHC:7431 )
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."
5. 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
6.
r to
Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or
flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice.
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)
August 27th, 2024 (KS) Judge
