The High Court can issue a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the application expeditiously under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the trial Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

G. Shyam Prasad, J. - This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1893 of 2019 in O.S.No.216 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol.

2. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. This Court is of the view that no notice is required to be issued to the respondent since a direction sought by the petitioners is to the trial Court to dispose of the I.A.No.1893 of 2019. The Courts are expected to dispose of Interlocutory Applications within one month, if an interim injunction is granted as per Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC.

Order XXXIX Rule 3-A of CPC, which reads as under:

"3-A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days: - Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability."

4. Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory jurisdiction of High Court which can be exercised in the following circumstances :

"The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless (i) the eroor is manifest and apparent of the face 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 in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Cahnder Rai, (2003) AIR SC 3044

7. In the exercise of jurisdiction under Art.227, the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior Court or tribunal if there was no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or tribunal has come to, or, in other words, it is a finding which was perverse in law. Except to this limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact in Duruwala Mani Nariman v. Bhatena Phiroz, N, (1991) 3 SCC 141

8. This means that the High Court can interfere, under Art.227, in cases of :

(a) Erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction ( Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, (1963) AIR SC 1895 )

(b) Refusal to exercise jurisdiction ( Dahya Lal v. RAsul Mohammed Abdul Rahim, (1964) AIR SC 1320 )

(c) Error of law apparent on the face of the record ( Satyanarayana Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjuna Bhavanappa Tirumale, (1960) AIR SC 137 ), but not in concurrent finding of the fact ( Fatimabibi Usmal Patel v. Manguben Pranbhai Thakkar, (1995) Supp3 SCC 193 (para 9) ) as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction ( Provincial Transport Service v. State Industrial Court, (1963) AIR SC 114 ).

(d) Violation of the principles of natural justice ( Dahya Lal v. Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim, (1964) AIR SC 1320 )

(e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion ( Santosh Kumar v. Mool Simngh Bhai, (1958) AIR SC 321 )

(f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material ( Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, (1963) AIR SC 1895 )

(g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure *( Trimbak Gangadhar TElang v. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide, (1977) AIR SC 1222 )

(h) Order resulting in manifest injustice ( Trimbak Gangadhar Telang v. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide, (1977) AIR SC 1222 )

(i) Error both on facts and in law or even otherwise ( State of Kerala v. K.Sarojini Amma, (2003) 8 SCC 526 )"

5. In Dahya Lal v. Rasul Mohammed Abdul Rahim, (1964) AIR SC 1320 , when the Court refuses to exercise the jurisdiction, a direction can be given under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to exercise its jurisdiction.

6. In this matter, the trial Court having jurisdiction to entertain the application and dispose of the same wi