Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Vivek Sharma vs Dr. Mrs. Swati Sharma on 23 May, 2025
1
( 2025:HHC:15623 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.109 of 2019
Date of Decision : 23.05.2025
Dr. Vivek Sharma
...... Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Mrs. Swati Sharma
......Respondent
_________________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant
Sharma, Advocate.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order
dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Court below, whereby, an application filed under
Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure for placing on
record the original Birth Certificate of the minor and the record pertaining to Shri
Ram Millennium School, Noida qua the minor in the case at hand, has been
rejected.
2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment,
petition and the documents appended thereto.
3. The main petition, in the case at hand, pending adjudication before
the Court is a petition filed under Section 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
read with Section 6 of the Minority and Guardianship Act for the custody of minor.
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
( 2025:HHC:15623 )
4. Paragraph-1 of the petition so filed by the petitioner pertains to the
age and sex of the minor in the case at hand. The age and sex of the minor in
reply to the said Paragraph has been admitted.
5. Similarly, in Paragraph-8 of the petition, one of the averment made
is with respect to the minor in the case at hand having studied in Shri Ram
Millennium School, Noida. The said fact has been admitted in the reply.
6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, seeking
production of the original Birth Certificate and record pertaining to the minor
having studied in Shri Ram Millennium School, Noida, is futile.
7. The said documents are not relevant in determining, as to whether
the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the minor or not.
8. Moreover the present petition has been preferred under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. 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."
( 2025:HHC:15623 )
(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 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, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable
conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction
( 2025:HHC:15623 )
reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every
error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported is not permissible.
10. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of
the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
11. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, shall also stand disposed of.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
May 23, 2025 (KS) Judge
