Vikas Kejriwal vs Smt. Sonali Kejariwal
2023 Latest Caselaw 16353 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                               ON THE 5 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                              MISC. PETITION No. 5902 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           VIKAS KEJRIWAL S/O LATE SHRI VINOD KEJRIWAL,
                           AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
                           701/702, BUILDING NO. B-7 MANSAROVAR GARDEN
                           NEAR BARALA DEVI BHIWANDI, DISTRICT THANE
                           (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI RIZWAN NIZAM - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           SMT. SONALI KEJARIWAL W/O SHRI VIKAS KEJRIWAL,
                           AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 18-
                           A, RAMCHANDRA NAGAR, AERODROME ROAD
                           DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT


                                 T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

This is petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 14/9/2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC for permission to produce Whatsapp chatting, call details and Google Timeline has been dismissed.

2. The respondent has filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. The statement of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 05-10-2023 16:20:11

respondent/plaintiff has already been recorded and the statement of other witnesses has also been recorded. Their cross-examination has also been done and the case is fixed for recording the evidence of defendant/petitioner. All the chatting etc. and the Google Timeline which are sought to be produced at this stage are of year 2019.

3. In the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(3) r/w Section 151 of CPC, it is stated that the petitioner had forgotten about the chatting and was not aware that the Google Timeline etc. can be obtained and, therefore, he could not file application before the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff. It is argued that in exercise of the powers under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of CPC, the Court

can permit the application for production of documents at a later stage. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. and Anr. Vs. P.Rajkumar reported in 2020 Legal Eagle (SC) 639 and also the order of Chattisgarh High Court passed in the case of Harish Kumar Sonkar Vs. Santosh Sonkar and Ors. reported in 2022 Legal Eagle (CHH) 788.

4. In the case of Sugandhi(supra) the Apex Court has held that if the cogent reasons are mentioned in the application for not producing the documents alongwith the written statement. In the said case it was stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. On the said ground the Court has allowed the application for production of document. Relying on the said judgment, Chattisgarh High Court has passed the order in the case of Harish Kumar Sonkar (supra).

5. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to assign reasons for not producing the aforesaid Whatsapp chatting which was of the year 2019. The evidence of the respondent/petitioner and her witnesses have already been Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 05-10-2023 16:20:11

recorded and the case is fixed for petitioner evidence. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Even otherwise, it is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of subordinate Courts within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order is passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental principle of law and justice. [See. Jai Singh and another vs. MCD, (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Shalini Shetty vs. Rajendra S. Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329].

7. Further, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashutosh Dubey and another vs. Tilak Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal and another, 2004 (2) MPHT 14 held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction through available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of

law unless the following requirements are satisfied - (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the fact of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the instant petition is

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 05-10-2023 16:20:11

devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The order impugned in the present writ petition passed by the Court below is upheld.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Pramod

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 05-10-2023 16:20:11