The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated 21st July 2022, passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 'the learned NCDRC') in Execution Application 39/2018 in Complaint Case 294/2015 (Abhay Goyal v. M/s A A Estate Pvt. Ltd.).

2. The impugned order reads as under:

'IA 6586 of 2022 (directions) Issue notice for 08.09.2022. All the Directors of the Judgment Debtor Company shall be present in person on the next date of hearing in view of the fact that despite the final order and despite taking adjournments for making the payment, no payment has so far been made. Meanwhile, report of the Collector shall also be called for. Copy of the application supplied to the learned Counsel for the Judgment Debtor.'

3. Mr. Arvind Nayar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that there was no warrant or justification for the learned NCDRC to direct the petitioners, who are the directors of M/s A A Estate Pvt. Ltd, (the respondents before the learned NCDRC) to appear in person.

4. He submits that attachment proceedings, toward execution of order dated 5th January 2018 passed by the learned NCDRC, are in process. At this point, he submits, therefore, the learned NCDRC has exceeded its jurisdiction in summoning the petitioners without due justification there for. Mr. Nayar has placed reliance, to support his submissions, on two recent orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sylvanus Properties Ltd. v. Paresh Pratap Rai Mehta MANU/DE/2585/2021 and Sandeep Jain v. Akash Gupta Order dated 4th October 2021 in CM(M) 676/2021 as well as an earlier judgment, by A.K. Sikri, J.(as he then was) sitting as a single Judge of this Court in (Dr.) V.P. Mainra v. Dawsons Leasing Ltd. 2004 (77) DRJ 727

Analysis

5. In Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrat Faizan(2022) 4 HCC (Del) 492, the question that fell for consideration before this Court was whether a writ petition under Article 227 would lie against an order passed by the learned NCDRC in appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

6. Section 23 of the 1986 Act provides for appeal only against orders passed by the learned NCDRC in exercise of original jurisdiction. This Court, therefore, held that no appeal to the Supreme Court, or to any other forum being available against an order passed by the learned NCDRC in appellate or revisional jurisdiction, a writ petition under Article 227 would be maintainable against such order.

7. The issue was carried to the Supreme Court, which, vide its judgment in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC 620, upheld the decision of this Court, even while entering the following note of caution in paras 27 and 28 of the report:

'27. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised.

28. The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd (2001) 8 SCC 97., which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel 2022 SCC OnLine SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the C