Karnataka High Court
M. Nagangoud vs M. Laxmangoud And Ors on 11 January, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.201055 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M. NAGANGOUD
S/O M.NARASANGOUD
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE
AND BUSINESS, R/O JYOTI COLONY,
OPP.I.B.STATION AREA,
RAICHUR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK V. BARAD ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M. LAXMANGOUD, S/O ERANGOUD
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE,
R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
2. M SHIVAKUMAR GOUD, S/O ERANGOUD
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS,
R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
3. M BASAVARAJGOUD, S/O EARANGOUD
AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
2
4. M. MALLIKARJUNGOUD, S/O EARANGOUD
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS,
R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
5. M. SRINIVASGOUD, S/O EARANGOUD
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS,
R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
6. M. SURENDRAGOUD S/O EARANGOUD
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS,
R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
6 a) M.SRIDEVI, W/O M.SURENDRA GOUDA
AGE: MAJOR, R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
6 b) POOJA D/O BASAVARAJ GOUDA
AGE: MAJOR, R/O MATMARI VILLAGE,
TQ:DIST:RAICHUR-584101.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER ANNEXURE-G DATED 14.05.2020 PASSED BY II
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAICHUR
ALLOWING I.A.NO.20 IN O.S.NO.8/2011 AND DISMISS
THE I.A.NO.20 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
I have heard Deepak V.Barad, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
2. In this writ petition petitioner has challenged
the order dated 14.05.2020 passed by the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur on IA.No.XX in OS
No.8/2011 produced at Annexure-G.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing
for petitioner, it is forthcoming from the records that the
daughters of Erangoud and the sisters of defendants 1 to 6
have filed OS No.210 of 2015, against the petitioner
herein, seeking the relief of partition and separate
possession. The very subject matter in the said suit is also
involved in OS No.8 of 2011 on the file of the trial Court.
Considering the finding recorded by trial Court at
paragraph 9 of the impugned order, I am of the view that
the issue involved in OS.No.8 of 2011 is also substantially
and directly involved in the issue in OS.No.210 of 2015
and therefore, I do not find any perversity and illegality in
the impugned order passed by the trial Court.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while adverting to
scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the
case of RADHESHYAM AND ANOTHER v. CHHABINATH AND
OTHERS reported in (2009)5 SCC 616 held as follows:
"Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the
High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari.
Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High
Courts with a power of superintendence which is to
be sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts
within the bounds of their authority. Under Article
227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be
examined only in very exceptional cases when
manifest miscarriage of justice has been
occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be
exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law."
5. The said aspect of the matter was also
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
JAISINGH AND OTHERS v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
DELHI AND ANOTHER reported in (2010)9 SCC 385. It is
held as follows:
"The High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, has the jurisdiction to
ensure that all subordinate courts as well as
statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise
the powers vested in them, within the bounds
of their authority. The High Court has the
power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well-established
principles of law."
It is further held that:
"It can not be exercised like a "bull in a
china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a
court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its
jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be
exercised in cases where orders have been passed
in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of
fundamental principles of law or justice. "
6. The question relating to exercise of jurisdiction
conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India had come up before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of DR. KAZIMUNNISA (DEAD)
BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE v. ZAKIA SULTANA (DEAD) BY
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHERS reported in
(2018)11 SCC 208, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
"The High Court should have decided the
matter by keeping in view the scope and ambit of
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for its
exercise as explained by the Supreme Court
consistently in a series of decisions. The High
Court while reversing the findings of the Special
Court decided the writ petition under Article 227
like a first appellate court by appreciating the
entire evidence little realizing that the jurisdiction
of the High Court while deciding the writ petition
under Article 227 is not akin to an appeal and nor
can it decide the writ petition like an appellate
court."
7. It is settled principle of law that the power of
superintendence conferred by Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to be exercised more sparingly and
only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate
courts within the bounds of their authority and not for
correcting mere errors. In a catena of decisions by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the High Court,
could not, in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, convert itself into a
court of Appeal when the legislature has not conferred the
right of appeal.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
MOHD. INAM VS. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL AND OTHERS
reported in AIR 2020 SC 3433, has held that the High
Court should be slow while exercising the power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At paragraph 32 of
the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
"32. It is well-settled principle of law,
that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court cannot convert itself into a
Court of appeal. It is equally well-settled, that
the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping
the subordinate tribunals within the limits of
their authority and seeing that they obey the
law. It has been held, that though the powers
under Article 227 are wide, they must be
exercised sparingly and only to keep
subordinate courts and Tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and not to correct
mere errors."
9. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgments referred above, the writ petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
