Harjit Kaur vs Jaspal Singh

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on February 21, 1998 in a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell immovable property instituted against her by the vendee. She was restrained by the interim order on February 21, 1998 from alienating the suit property except in favour of the plaintiff till further orders. The suit was decreed ex parte on January 3, 2000. She filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on February 24, 2004. That application was declined on November 27, 2008 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia. Aggrieved by the order, she preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad which was dismissed on April 27, 2012 against which the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the petitioner was served or not of summons in the suit is a pure question of fact which finding can normally be not interfered with in proceedings in exercise of power of superintendence conferred on this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India which are not meant to correct mere errors of fact or law in proceedings before the subordinate courts.

The scope of jurisdiction under has been delineated by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Supreme Court observed that power under Article 227 is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principles. 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 while in comparison Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances. The Court explained that power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227, 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 Article 227 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 the High Court.

In Nibaran Chandra Bag etc. Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, the Supreme Court observed:

12....jurisdiction conferred [under Article 227] is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts and tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority...

The Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the scope of Article 227 in the case of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, . The court observed as under:-

The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority, and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.

The Supreme Court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi Deceased through his Heirs and Legal Representatives, cautioning that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Rena Drego Vs. Lalchand Soni, Etc., again made it abundantly clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.

Besides, this petition suffers from delay and laches. It has been filed after two years of the passing of the last impugned order which has not been explained either by a separate application or in the body of the petition.

For the aforesaid reasons, no ground is made out warranting interference in the orders of the Courts below.

No merit.

Dismissed.