Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Thaneswar Bora, S/o. Late Durga Kalita – Appellant
Versus
Bhoben Bora, S/o. Late Puniram Bora And Late Bogi Bora – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jorhat in Misc.(A) Case No.18/2024 vacating the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jorhat in Misc.(J) Case N.107/2024.
3. In an injunction petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Jorhat granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit land as well as from using the suit land in any manner.
4. The learned Addl. District Judge, on appeal, disagreed with the trial judge and set aside the said injunction order.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
6. The main grounds on which the High Court interferes under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are –
i. When the inferior Courts act arbitrarily
ii. When the inferior Courts act in excess of the Jurisdiction vested in them.
iii. When the in
The High Court under Article 227 does not reconsider factual errors of inferior courts unless findings are perverse or unjust, maintaining supervisory authority without delving into case merits.
High Court under Article 227 may intervene only in cases of arbitrariness, excess of jurisdiction, or perverse findings; withdrawal of suit necessitates formal defects or sufficient grounds under CPC....
A party seeking to withdraw a suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) must establish formal defects or sufficient grounds; mere wish without such justification does not merit the High Court's interference.
A party cannot withdraw a suit under CPC without establishing formal defects; the High Court's interference is limited to cases of arbitrary action or manifest injustice.
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 and the need for supervisory correction in exercising jurisdiction.
The judgment emphasizes the limitations and conditions for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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
