Ganpatlal And Another vs Sajanbai And Others

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order passed by

the Civil Judge, Class I, Barnagar, Distt. Ujjain on an application preferred under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Sec. 21 / 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

Facts of the case reveal that a Civil Suit was preferred by the respondents stating categorically that the transaction took place between the parties at

village Baledi, Tehsil Barnagar, and therefore, the Court at Barnagar is having jurisdiction in the matter. An application was preferred by the

defendants under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Sec. 21 / 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and it was stated before the trial Court that the Court

is not having jurisdiction as the plaintiff and defendants are residents of Ujjain. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that there are

specific averments in the plaint in respect of the transaction which took place at village Baledi, Tehsil Barnagar. The trial Court has held that money

was paid by defendant No.1 at village Baledi, Tehsil Barnagar to the tune of Rs.5,10,000/- and in those circumstances the Court is having jurisdiction

in the matter.

This Court is of the considered opinion that as part of cause of action has accrued at Barnagar, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned

order. No patent illegality or jurisdictional error has been noticed by this Court.

The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph No.49 has held as under:-

On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the  exercise of High Court's jurisdiction underÂ

Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High

Court  under  these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called  a  writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High

Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been

discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with

the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor  can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal

subordinate to it. In cases  where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the

exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of  interference by High Courts in  exercise of  its  powerof superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this

Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in  Waryam Singh (supra)

and  the principles in  Waryam Singh  (supra) have been  repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and  various  other

decisions of this Court.

(e) According to  the ratio in  Waryam Singh (supra), followed insubsequent cases, 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 their authority'.

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to

exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence  when there has been

a patent perversity in the orders of 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.

(h) 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.

(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 Â cannot be curtailed by anystatute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of

the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC

261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.

(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code

(Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. Â At the same time, it must be

remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article

227.

(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. Inan appropriate case, the  power can be exercised suo motu.

(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court underArticle 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to

keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.

(m) The object  of  superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire

machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum

to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure  and unpolluted in order to maintain public

confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.

(n) This  reserve and exceptional power  of judicial  intervention is not  to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should

be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the  larger public interest whereas Article 226  is meant for

 protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227  may be  unfettered but  its exercise is  subject to  high

degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.

(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power  of its strength and

vitality.

In the light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court does not

suffers from any patent illegality nor any jurisdictional error has been committed by the Court below. Accordingly, the admission is declined.