The court clarified that under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction, with no grounds found for interference in the trial court's decision regarding the maintainability of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

CM No.27511/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 548/2021

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 8th March, 2021 passed by the Additional District Judge-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the three separate applications filed on behalf of the defendants in the suit proceedings i.e. (i) under Section 10 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) by the petitioner/defendant no.1; (ii) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by the petitioner/defendant no.1; and, (iii) under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by the defendant no.2, have been dismissed.

4. The petitioner and the respondent no.1 were married in 2012 and both were residing in the suit property till 16th February, 2014, when the respondent no.1 was compelled to move out of the said property. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant no.1 stating that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner. Similar application under Order VII Rule 11 has also been filed on behalf of the defendant no.2 raising similar contentions. An application under Section 10 of the CPC was also filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking a stay of the subsequent suit, pleading that a similar matter, also filed by the respondent no.1, was pending before the learned Civil Judge, Delhi. All the aforesaid applications were contested on behalf of respondent no.1/plaintiff by filing replies.

5. As regards the application under Section 10 of the CPC, the Trial Court has noted that the earlier suit, CS No.610880/2016 filed by the respondent no.1 before the learned Civil Judge was subsequently withdrawn on 6th June, 2019 and therefore, there cannot be any stay of the suit.

6. Insofar as the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is concerned, the Trial Court has noted that the case of the respondent no.1, as per the plaint is that the suit property is a matrimonial house and therefore, she is entitled to right of residence in the suit property. Accordingly, going by the averments made in the plaint, the Trial Court observed that, it cannot be held at this stage that the suit filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action and therefore, ought to be dismissed in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

7. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited only to cases of jurisdictional error or cases where there is a manifest error on the face of the record. The powers conferred under Article 227 are discretionary and can be exercised only when the findings of the subordinate court are perverse or contrary to the material on record. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not sitting as an Appellate Court. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675, where parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are set out:

"38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:

...

(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised