Unknown vs The
2023 Latest Caselaw 487 UK

                     Office Notes,
                    reports, orders
SL.                 or proceedings
         Date                                            COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 or directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      23.02.2023                       WPMS No. 2903 of 2019
                                       With
                                       WPMS No. 2904 of 2019
                                       Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.

                                             Mr. Siddharth       Sah,   learned     counsel   for    the
                                       petitioner.
                                           Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the
                                       respondent.

The present petitions, under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, have been preferred to assail the

order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Nainital in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2018

titled "Kanchan Bhagat vs. Shankar Bhagat" and the

judgment and order dated 02.09.2019 passed by the

Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Nainital, District

Nainital in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2019 titled "Shanker

Bhagat vs. Smt. Kanchan Bhagat".

The respondent initiated the aforesaid Suit,

wherein the petitioner was the defendant. Despite

service and engagement of counsel by the petitioner,

the petitioner stopped appearing in the proceedings and

the Suit proceeded ex parte leading to pass an ex parte

judgment and decree dated 25.04.2015. After about three and half years, the petitioner

preferred an Application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC,

along with an Application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act to seek condonation of delay of about

three and half years. These Applications were rejected

by the Trial Court on 05.04.2019. Against the said

orders, the petitioner has preferred two remedies, i.e. a

Family Revision under Section 115 of CPC in respect of

the order passed on the Application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act dismissing the same, and an Appeal

under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of CPC against rejection of

the Application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

Against the rejection of the aforesaid Appeal and

the Revision, these two petitions have been preferred.

WPMS No.2903 of 2019 has been preferred to assail

the order passed in the revision proceedings, whereas

WPMS No.2904 of 2019 has been preferred to assail

the order passed in the Appeal.

I am satisfied that both these petitions are not

maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India.

The jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article

227 of the Constitution of India is a supervisory jurisdiction. The said jurisdiction has to be exercised

sparingly and the purpose of the said jurisdiction is to

ensure that the Subordinate Courts act within the

bounds of their authorities. Either a case of failure to

exercise the jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, or a

grave injustice resulting from procedural lapse such as

non-compliance of the principles of natural justice has

to be made out before this Court interferes under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Neither of

these contingencies are present in the present

petitions, since it cannot be said that the Courts below

have either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or

exceeded their jurisdiction or there was failure of

justice.

I may refer to the recent judgment of this Court

in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 321 of 2023 titled

"Rajeev Rastogi and another vs. Harimohan",

decided on 13.02.2023.

For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions are

dismissed.

(Vipin Sanghi, CJ)

23.02.2023

Rathour