Jharkhand High Court
Jitendra Prasad Mahto vs Nirmal Mahto on 12 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1 CMP No.624/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No.624 of 2023
------
1. Jitendra Prasad Mahto
2. Ashok Mahto @ Ashok Kumar Mahto
3. Basudeo Mahto @ Basudeo Prasad
4. Kishni Devi .... .... Petitioners/Defendants
Versus
1. Nirmal Mahto
2. Most. Shanti
3. Bijay Prasad Mahto
4. Arjun Prasad Mahto
5. Mahendra Kumar Mahto
6. Anju Devi .... .... Respondents/Plaintiffs
7. Ganesh Prasad Mahto
8. Jagdish Prasad Mahto
9. Kishuni Devi
10. Jageshwar Mahto
11. Nageshwar Mahto
12. Sukar Mahto
13. Sahdeo Mahto
14. Mahadeo Mahto
15. Gudia Kumari
16. Shakuntala Devi
17. Reshmi Devi
18. Kusum Devi @ Suman Devi
19. Pradeep Kumar Banerjee
20. Shyamal Kumar Banerjee
.... .... Proforma Respondents/Defendants
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :
------
03/Dated: 12.01.2024
1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 29.11.2013 and 18.04.2023
passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-VIII, Hazaribag in Title Suit
No.28 of 2008 namely, "Certificate of Auction Sale of Land", whereby
and whereunder, the petition was filed dated 17.11.2022 praying
therein for marking one document as contained in serial no.5 of the
list dated 12.08.2009 exhibited.
2. The said petition has been rejected vide impugned order
against which the present petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the
document as contained in serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009
could not be marked as exhibit which is the certified copy of the
auction certificate in case no.508/1918-19 and as such, the said
document is having bearing in deciding the said suit and as such, the
prayer has been made to mark the said document as exhibit.
4. The plaintiff to the suit has seriously objected by placing the
order passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.11.2013, whereby
and whereunder, the document as contained in the list dated
12.08.2009 as under serial no.5 and 6 has been sought to be
marked as exhibit but the said petition filed vide petition dated
10.09.2012.
5. The said petition was partly allowed for marking the document
at serial no.6 as exhibit while rejected for the document at serial no.5
vide the aforesaid order but the petitioner herein, the defendant to
the suit did not challenge the said order before the Higher Court and
consequently, the said prayer has been made, therefore, the prayer
made in the petition dated 17.11.2022 cannot be said to be proper
and is not fit to be allowed.
6. Learned trial Court, on appreciating the rival submission made
on behalf of the parties, has rejected the petition dated 17.11.2022,
against which, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who was the defendant to
the suit was in bonafide impression that while partly allowing the
petition dated 12.08.2009 by which the document no.6 was allowed
to be marked as exhibit has thought that the document in serial no.5
has also been allowed to be marked, therefore, it was not thought of
challenging the said order, hence, there is bonafide mistake and
hence, the petition has been filed but the learned trial Court, without
appreciating the aforesaid fact has rejected the said petition,
therefore, the present petition.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
gone through the material available on record as also considered the
order impugned.
9. The admitted fact herein is that as per the finding recorded by
the learned trial Court as also what this court has gathered from the
argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the two
documents in the list dated 12.08.2009 as under serial no.5 and 6
had been sought to be marked exhibited by filing petition on
10.09.2012.
10. The said petition was partly allowed vide order dated
29.11.2013, by which, the document at serial no.5 of the list dated
12.08.2009 was allowed but marking of document in serial no.5 has
not been allowed.
11. It is the further admitted fact that the order dated 29.11.2013
has never been challenged by the petitioner before the higher forum
but again the petition was filed on 17.11.2022 seeking therein the
prayer to mark the document in serial no.5 of the list dated
12.08.2009.
12. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the fact
that the marking of the document as exhibit at serial no.5 since has
been rejected vide order dated 29.11.2013 and the same has not
been challenged before the Higher Forum, hence, the same prayer
which has already been set at rest cannot be said to be allowed and
accordingly, rejected the said petition.
13. This petition has been filed under the provision of Article 227
of the Constitution of India and it is settled position of law that the
High Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
got limited jurisdiction as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra
Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Article 227 which relates
to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Calcutta High
Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar
Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein, it has
been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not
vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at
the court's discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions.
The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well
recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial
principles which give it its character. In general words, the High
Court's power of superintendence is a power to keep the
subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that
they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal
manner.
i. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless
there has been;
(a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court
or tribunal; or
(b) gross abuse of jurisdiction; or
(c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or
tribunals.
ii. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court
has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman
Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141,
wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an
inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or
where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the
conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to.
iii. The Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to
this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with
the finding of facts.
iv. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing
Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has been
laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume
unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong
decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty
and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice.
v. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid
judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it
appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is
for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the
powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and
distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between
these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court
normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling
the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order
which the inferior tribunal should have made.
vi. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be
exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of
superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals
and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of its authority, in
order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by
exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining
to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that,
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 manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural
justice have been flouted.
vii. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot
interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another
view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it,
is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very
sparingly exercised.
14. It is evident from the judgment as has been referred
hereinabove that the Court exercising the supervisory power as
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is only to see error
apparent on the face of record or if the order has been passed
without any jurisdiction.
15. This Court placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment and
coming back to the impugned order, has found what has been
pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
considering the admitted fact that the prayer which has been sought
to be allowed vide petition dated 17.11.2022 since has already dealt
with by rejecting the same which has attained its finality having not
been challenged after lapse of period of 10 years. Therefore, on the
aforesaid ground, the petition dated 17.11.2022 has been rejected,
which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said
to suffer from an error apparent on the face of record.
16. In the result, the instant petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-A.F.R.
