Rajasthan High Court
Mohammad Yusuf vs Khatoon Andors ... on 10 August, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:17301]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8216/2016
Mohammad Yusuf S/o Late Shafi Mohammad, aged about 61
years, resident of Ward No. 9, Mohalla Vyapariyan, town Losal,
Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Khatoon W/o Late Babu,
2.Yakub S/o Late Babu
3. Ikram S/o Late Babu
4. Ayub S/o Late Babu
5. Tahira D/o Late Babu
All resident of Mohalla Pinaran Laxmangarh, District Sikar
7. Latif S/o Ganni, resident of Ward No. 12, Losal, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar
8. Jaisaram S/o of Shri Hanumanaram, resident of Bijarniyon ki
Dhanitan Singrawat, Tehsil & District Sikar
(as per the direction of order dated 11/04/2016 the name of
respondentNo. 1To 8 are deleted
9. Mohammad Jamil S/o of Abdul Rajjak, resident of Ward
No.12,Losal Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar
----Respondents
10. Mohammad Ayub,
11. Mohammad Amin
12. Shokat Ali, No.10, 11 and 12 are sons of Late Shri Shafi
Mohammad.
13. Yunus
14. Sharif,
15. Shakoor
16.Aasif
17. Aarif
18. Majid
19. Nawab
Sons of Late Fateh Mohammad, resident of Ward No.09, Mohalla
Vyapariyan, Town Losal, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Imran Khan
For Respondent(s) :
[2023:RJ-JP:17301] (2 of 4) [CW-8216/2016]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
10/08/2023
1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 06/05/2016 whereby
the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed and the order dated 09/12/2015 has been upheld.
2. The present writ petition was filed against an interlocutory
order. When the matter was called upon hearing today, learned
counsel for the petitioner was not able to appraise the Court about
the present status of the proceedings pending before the
concerned Court at Sikar which were filed in the year 2014. The
instant petition was filed in the year 2016. However, the present
matter is coming up on board in 2023. On perusal of the Court
file, it is also noted that no genuine efforts have been made by the
petitioner, since filing of the writ petition, to contest the matter.
3. Be that as it may, it is trite law that there is limited scope of
interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a
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. Reliance in this
[2023:RJ-JP:17301] (3 of 4) [CW-8216/2016]
regard can be placed on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd.
Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors. reported in (2020)
7 SCC 327. In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court only has to
analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some
mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that
order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is
passed after consideration of the facts and material on record.
4. Upon a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that the
father of the petitioner namely, Mr. Shafi Mohammad had filed a
civil suit for the cancellation of the sale letter as well as an
application for permanent injunction along with application of
temporary injunction. The learned court below has rightly taken
note of the contradictory statements as well as facts of the
present case and thereafter, has given a finding that the petitioner
had not approached the court below with clean hands. It was also
noted that the disputed property had been transferred in favour of
Latif and Jaisaram by way of registered sale deed and thereafter,
the same was further sold to one Mohammad Jameel. Thus, as on
date, the disputed portion of the subject property in Khasra No.
175 and 176 is registered in the revenue records in the name of
Mohammad Jameel.
5. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has
passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of
material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in
complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Court
below. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no
palpable error has crept in the order of the learned trial court,
[2023:RJ-JP:17301] (4 of 4) [CW-8216/2016]
warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
6. As a result, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA/55
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
