S. K. MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) --THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of proclamation of sale issued under the signature of the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Kolkata.

( 2 ) THIS application is not in form. The certified copy of the order impugned has not been annexed with the said application. Chapter V of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Appellate Side) specifies the general rules of procedures. Under Rule 9 of the said chapter V of the said Rules, in the case of an application for revision, certified copy of the order to which the application relates must accompany the application. The said Rule 9 is set out below: 9. In the case of an application revision, the application shall be accompanied by certified copies of each of the following documents: (i)the judgment, decree or order to which the application relates; (ii)if the judgment, decree or order to which the application relates was a judgment, decree or order delivered by a Court sitting in appeal, the copies of the judgment, decree or order of the Court of first instance. Note: Except in application to be heard by a single Judge together with the application shall be filed with duplicate type written copies of the application and the judgments or orders filed with such application. ?

( 3 ) THE Debts Recovery Tribunal has been impleaded as opposite party No. 1 in the said application. In an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Tribunal whose order is challenged is not a necessary party.

( 4 ) A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, speaking through P. N. Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was), in the case of Gopichand Khoobchand Sharma and Ors. v. Works Manager, Loco-shops, Western Railway, Dohad and Anr. , reported in AIR 1967 Gujarat 27 observed that if the petition was for relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Tribunal whose order has been impugned in the said application need not be made a party to the application. The jurisdiction, which the High Court exercised under Article 227 was of superintendence-- a jurisdiction somewhat analogous to the revisional jurisdiction, which the High Courts have under diverse statutes. In the said judgment a decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 985 of 1963 Muhammad Enamual Haque v. Muhammad J. Hussain has been relied upon by the said Division Bench. The observation of the Gujarat High Court is quoted hereunder: now there can be no doubt that in a petition for relief under Article 226, the Tribunal whose order is impugned in the petition must be made a party to the petition so that the writ sought from the Court can go against the Tribunal, but if the petition is for relief under Article 227 it is well settled that the Tribunal whose order is impugned in the petition need not be made a party to the petition. The reason is that by entertaining a petition under Article 227 the High Court does not seek to exercise jurisdiction to issue any high prerogative writ; the jurisdiction which the High Court exercises under Article 227 is of superintendence-- a jurisdiction somewhat analogous to the revisional jurisdiction which the High Court have under diverse statutes and just as in an application for revision it is not necessary to make the Court whose order is sought to be revised a party to the application, so also in a petition invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227, the Tribunal whose order is sought to be challenged is not a necessary party. ?

( 5 ) A learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in the case of Puzhakkal Edam alias Puthen Edon and Ors. v. Kunchappan, reported in AIR 1974 Kerala 210, also, reiterated the same view and held that the Court or Tribunal, whose order was sought to be revised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was not a necessary party to the proceeding before the High Court. The observations of the learned Judge are quoted below: there is a cle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document