Article 227 of the Constitution serves a supervisory function, not an appellate one, focusing on jurisdictional errors and not the correctness of decisions made by lower courts.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Articles 227 - Jurisdiction and scope - Article 227 is meant for supervisory corrections and not for intervening in proceedings below - Misconceptions about its ambit lead to misconceived petitions - Need for the court below's error to warrant intervention. (Paras 2, 3 and 12)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 and Order 39 Rule 2A - Court is not obliged to prioritize cases as assessed by the petitioner; prioritization is within the discretion of the learned Additional District Judge. (Paras 8 and 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks intervention of the High Court under Article 227 on challenges to two orders passed by the Additional District Judge regarding the appointment of a local commissioner and the scheduling of hearings.

Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for intervention as the orders challenged did not exhibit any error deserving of correction under Article 227.

Issues: The principal issue was whether the orders issued by the lower court warranted supervisory correction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Article 227 serves as a supervisory jurisdiction and does not allow intervention unless the lower court's proceedings exhibit significant errors.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. misconceptions regarding article 227 (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. claims made in the petition (Para 4 , 5)
3. details of the orders under challenge (Para 6)
4. court's refusal to interfere in order (Para 7 , 8)
5. judicial discretion on hearing applications (Para 9 , 10)
6. petition dismissed (Para 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. Having perused the record and having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length, I confess that I am completely clueless as to how the petitioner deemed the present case fit to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. This Court has been observing, time and again, that there appear to be serious misconceptions regarding the scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Several of the petitions, which have come up before this Court, seek intervention by this Court under Article 227 by effectively calling upon this Court to steer and navigate the proceedings before the court below. Article 227 is not intended to serve any such purpose. The Court, under Article 227, exercises superintending jurisdiction. Alternatively, it could be said that the court acts in its supervisory capacity. It is only, therefore, where the court below, while exercising its judicial powers, commits an error that calls for correction in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, that this Court would step in.

3. In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2003) 3 SCC 524], the Supreme Court has clarified, unexceptionably, that the Article 227 court is not concerned with the correctness of the order under challenge. One may say that Article 227 concerns itself more with the Court which passed the order than the order passed by the Court. Article 227 jurisdiction is meant to be exercised in sparing and rare cases where the manner of exercise, by the court below, of the jurisdiction vested in it, calls for supervisory correction, essentially to ensure that such an occasion does not arise again.

4. The prayer in the present petition, reads thus:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to:-

i) summon the trial court record;

ii) accept and admit this petition;

iii) stay the proceedings;

iv) set-aside the impugned orders dated 24.03.2021 and 1.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble court of Ms. Pooja talwar, Ld. ADJ (south), Saket courts, Delhi in suit no. 11/2019 titled as "khem chand mukim vs chandni dugar and ors" as well as the order dated 28.03.2022, passed by the Hon'ble court commissioner, in the interest of justice;

v) to pass the certain directions to the trial court to decide the pending application at priority, before proceeding further in the pending trial,

vi) Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also passed/ granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

5. As is apparent from a reading of the aforesaid prayer, the petitioner is assailing two orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 24th March, 2021 and 1st February, 2022. Both orders have been passed in CS 11/19 (Khem Chand Mukim v. Chandni Dugar & Anr.).

6. It is worthwhile to reproduce these two orders, as they manifestly disclose the completely misdirected nature of the present petition:

Order dated 24th March, 2021

"CS No. 11/19

Khem Chand Mukim

Vs.

Chandni Dugar And Anr.

24.03.2021

Present: Sh. Ashok Dang, counsel for plaintiff with plaintiff.

Defendant no.1 in person.

Sh. D K Rai and Ms. Laxita Arya, counsels for defendant no.2

An application has been filed under section 151 CPC by defendant no.1. Copy supplied. Let reply to the same be filed with advance copy to other side.

An application under order 39 rule 2A CPC is also pending. Since counsel for defendant no.1 is not available and counsel for plaintiff has hearing before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, accordingly, passover is not possible.

Both