____________________________________________________ vs Tara Dutt And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 514 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

____________________________________________________ vs Tara Dutt And Another on 6 May, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                    CMPMO No. 194 of 2025
                                     Decided on: 06.05.2025
____________________________________________________
Puran Singh                                ........... petitioner
                            Versus
Tara Dutt and another
                                          ..........respondents
____________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the petitioner                     :      Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate,
                                              with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents    :    Nemo
____________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

The present petition has been filed, feeling aggrieved

by the order dated 04.01.2025, whereby an application filed under

Section 151 of CPC for seeking police assistance for enforcement

of order dated 31.08.2024 passed by this Court in CMA No.

134/6 of 2024 has been dismissed.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the

pleadings.

3. Vide order dated 31.08.2024, the trial Court had

restrained the respondents from causing any damage to the suit

land. The present petitioner in an application filed under Section

151 of C.P.C seeking police assistance for the enforcement of

order dated 31.08.2024 had alleged that the respondents had

caused damage to the suit land. It was specifically averred therein

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

that the pillars on the gate had been damaged and the lock put

over the gate had been broken.

4. In response filed to the application under Section 151

CPC, besides raising preliminary objection to the maintainability

of the application on merits, averments made in the application

were categorically denied rather to the contrary, it was stated that

the applicant had disobeyed the injunction order passed by the

Court and the matter had been reported to the police.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, a status report was called

for from the concerned police station qua the suit land. In the

same, there was no mention of any damage having been caused

to the suit land. In the case at hand, besides averments made in

the application, nothing substantial had been placed on record by

the present petitioner to show disobedience of the order dated

31.08.2024 by the present respondents.

6. Before seeking external help of police authorities for

implementation of its orders, the Court has to be careful and

circumspect. It is only where the violation of the order is so

prejudicial that the remedy available under the statute would not

be sufficient or effective that the inherent power may be

exercised. Normally, the inherent powers are not intended to be

exercised for implementation of an order of the Court. It is only

when the Court finds that a litigant who has got an order from the

Court is not in a position to have its full benefits owing to

obstruction by the other side to the proceedings that the court

may resort to the law enforcement machinery to see that its order

is obeyed.

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.

11. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the

impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dated

04.01.2025. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed alongwith

pending miscellaneous, applications, if any.

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

May 06, 2025 tarun