Jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory; courts may not correct mere errors unless there's a grave dereliction of duty or substantial injustice.

Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Jurisdiction - Challenge to the order directing plaintiff to file affidavit in evidence despite pending CFSL report - Court emphasizes that exercise of powers under Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate - Court does not correct mere errors unless a serious dereliction of duty is shown. (Paras 11-13)

(B) Judicial Authority - The duty of the higher courts does not include substituting their view for that of lower courts - Supervision of lower courts is confined to ensuring they act within their jurisdiction and do not commit substantial errors. (Paras 22-24)

(C) Legal Process - The party that has the burden of proof, or 'dominus litis', is required to stand on its own legs in presenting evidence. (Paras 8 and 25)

Facts of the case:
Appellant is challenging a trial court's order to file affidavits in evidence without waiting for the CFSL report. The trial court had closed evidence for the defence and required the plaintiff to submit their affidavit.

Findings of Court:
The court finds no jurisdictional error in the trial court's order and allows one final opportunity for the appellant to comply.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in directing affidavit submission during pending CFSL report?

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court underscored that it should not intervene unless there is a severe dereliction of duty by the lower court. The plaintiff must independently present evidence even with a pending report.

Result: Petition stands disposed of; one final opportunity granted to file affidavits.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. petitioner's arguments regarding trial court's order. (Para 9 , 10)
3. court's reasoning and observations on article 227 jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. final order granting opportunity to the petitioner. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 29th November, 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ", hereinafter). A brief recapitulation of the proceedings as they transpired before the trial court is necessary.

2. Vide order dated 14th March, 2014, this Court - which was in seisin of the proceedings prior to their being transferred to the trial court vide order dated 5th March, 2016, consequent to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court - noted that the defendant in the suit had set up an oral family settlement dated 26th January, 2003 which was subsequently reduced to a written memorandum of family settlement dated 27th September, 2009 and, therefore, that the defendant should adduce evidence in the first instance. The defendant was, therefore, directed to file affidavit in evidence.

3. The defendant led the evidence of ten witnesses who, over a period of time, were examined, cross examined and discharged. On 6th July, 2019, the evidence of DW-9 was closed. DW-10 was not present and bailable warrants were directed to be issued to secure his presence. The matter was re-notified for 7th September, 2019 for respondent's evidence and 28th September, 2019 for the petitioner's evidence, the petitioner being the plaintiff before the trial court. The order also required the petitioner to file his affidavit in evidence in the meanwhile.

4. As DW-10 did not appear and as it was brought to the attention of the court that bailable warrants could not be issued as steps had not been taken, the learned Trial Court, on 7th September, 2019, again, directed bailable warrants to issue in terms of the order dated 6th July, 2019. It was also directed, that on the next date of hearing, the matter would be taken up for the defendant's evidence instead of the plaintiff's evidence. The matter was, therefore, re-notified for 28th September, 2019.

5. On 28th September, 2019, DW-10 was examined, cross examined and discharged. The disputed settlement deed dated 27th September, 2009 was sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for examination and the CFSL was directed to report by 16th November, 2019. The respondent, on the said date, stated that it had no other witness to lead.

6. As such, defence evidence was closed on 28th September, 2019.

7. On 29th November, 2021, the impugned order came to be passed. It was noted in the said order that the CFSL report had not yet been received. The defendant stated that it reserved its right to examine the CFSL witness as and when the report was received.

8. The trial court thereafter proceeded to observe thus:

"The plaintiff was also directed to file the affidavit in PE with advance copy to the opposite side & the date was also fixed for PE. However since plaintiff was not able to file the affidavit by the said date, the matter continue to be fixed for DE as per record. Fact remains that plaintiff does not file affidavit in evidence. Although there was attempts by the plaintiff side to justify the non filing of the affidavit on the basis of report awaited, the court does not find any relation between non filing of the affidavit on the basis of non filing of the report as plaintiff being dominus Iitus is to stand on its own legs. The plaintiff is given last and final opportunity to file affidavits in evidence, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in DLSA, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. Affidavits in evidence be filed within six weeks from today, with advance copy to the opposite side.

Fai