Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Chandni Dugar – Appellant
Versus
Khem Chand Mukim – Respondent
| 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) |
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, t
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and local commissioners can be appointed before recording evidence.
Jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory; courts may not correct mere errors unless there's a grave dereliction of duty or substantial injustice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the scope and object of Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing its purpose and the need for the Court to ex....
The court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the finding that the existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant....
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying doubts and not to fill up any lacuna or omission in the evidence already recorded.
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is one of superintendence, limited to ensuring lower courts act within their authority, and it cannot be exercised as an appellate power to re-app....
[The court established that amendments to pleadings can be allowed even after the commencement of trial under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, provided the party demonstrates due diligence and the nature ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
