The distinction between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the limitations and scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under these articles.

ORDER :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. In this intra-court appeal challenge is laid to the order dated 23.6.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.10611 of 2022.

2. We have heard Mr. Amrish V. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the appellant who submits that he has been instructed to appear on behalf of Mr. Jigar A. Pandya.

3. In Special Civil Application No.10611 of 2022 filed before the learned Single Judge, challenge was laid to the orders dated 17.3.2022 and 22.4.2022 whereunder the interlocutory applications filed in Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2017 for appointment of handwriting expert and review application filed by the respondents at Exh.144 and Exh.152 seeking review of the order dated 17.3.2022 passed on Exh.144 came to be dismissed. Said petition was though filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, learned Single Judge has rightly observed that impugned orders which led to filing of Special Civil Application has to be construed as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Respondents in Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2017 filed an application at Exh.144 (without specifying the provision of law) sought for appointment of a Government handwriting expert to verify the handwriting in the documents which had been produced and marked as Exh.104 to Exh.106. This application came to be dismissed by order dated 17.3.2022. Seeking review of this order, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 as per Exh.152 came to be filed which was heard and dismissed by order dated 22.4.2022. These two orders passed by the jurisdictional Civil Court viz. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanand were challenged before the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10611 of 2022, who by order dated 23.6.2022 allowed the Special Civil Application and set aside the orders passed by the learned trial Court. In other words, the interlocutory application filed under Exh.144 had stood allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

5. The order which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge was an order passed by the Civil Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana [(2017) 5 SCC 533] at paragraph 42.3 has held as under :

“42.3 A writ petition which assails the order of a civil court in the High Court has to be understood, in all circumstances, to be a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution and determination by the High Court under the said Article and, hence, no intra-court appeal is entertainable.”

6. This judgment has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Nandini J. Shah [(2018) 15 SCC 356]. Hence, we are of the view that facts of the present will have to be examined in this background. Before embarking upon such an exercise, it would also be useful to refer to the judgment of the Full Court Judgment of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Firoze M. Mogal and Anr. [2014 (1) GLH (FB) 1] whereunder it came to be held that by entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not seek to exercise jurisdiction to issue any prerogative writs. In the instant case, while examining the order passed by the Trial Court, the learned Single Judge has exercised the power of superintendence. The powers contemplated by the Constitution under Articles 226 and 227 appear to be different. The former is described as the power to issue certain writs, orders or directions. The latter is described as the power of superintendence. The power under Article 227 is a power that can be exercised by the High Court over the Courts and Tribunals over which it has power of superintendence. In the instant case, the order of the Trial Court which is sought to be interfered by the learned Single Judge is and was in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and not the original jurisdiction and as such by no stretch of imagination, the petition,