The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 and the need for supervisory correction in exercising jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 6th September 2022, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) ("the learned Commercial Court") in CS (Comm) 627/2019 (MLK Mega Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Akshat Kedia), whereby the application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in the suit, under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), has been dismissed.

2. The only ground on which the petitioner had predicated his application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC was that the suit was bad for want of territorial jurisdiction, as territorial jurisdiction, to adjudicate on the lis forming subject matter of the suit, vested in courts at Bangalore. The learned Commercial Court has observed that the issue would require leading of evidence and has, therefore, not agreed to return the petitioner's suit at the very outset under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC. Nonetheless, the learned Commercial Court has protected the petitioners' interest by framing a specific issue as to whether the court of the learned Commercial Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. In my considered opinion, this petition is yet another example which illustrates the complete lack of comprehension regarding the exact scope and the ambit of jurisdiction vested in High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Time without number, this Court has had occasion to cite the authoritative pronouncements on the point being Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P.) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181, Puri Investments v. Young Friends & Co., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283, Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Ibrat Faizan v Omaxe Buildhome, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 620, as delineating, sharply, the contours of Article 227.

5. The relevant passages from the said decisions may be reproduced thus:

Estralla Rubber, (2001) 8 SCC 97:

"7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram Tahel Ramnand, AIR 1972 SC 1598 in para 12 has stated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution 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. Reference also has been made in this regard to the case Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215. This Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte, AIR 1975 SC 1297, has observed that the power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal and that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by these pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned order."

*****

Garment Craft, (2022) 4 SCC 181

"15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order [Prakash Chand Goel v. Garment Craft, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11943] is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. [Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217] The jurisdiction exer