The question for consideration in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether an order allowing or refusing to allow amendment of pleadings, if not appealable or revisable, is amendable to correction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is now well settled that an order granting or refusing to grant amendment of pleadings is not revisable under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly after its amendment in the year 2002. Instances are numerous of such orders being challenged before this Court by means of Writ Petitions filed under Art.226 and/or Art.227 of the Constitution of India. It has, indeed, been judicially noticed by the Supreme Court of India that after the amendment of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all the High Courts in India are flooded with petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging all sorts of interlocutory orders. (Vide Rajeswari v. Puran Indoria – 2005 (7) SCC 60). By the various judicial pronouncement it is now, by and large, settled that there are certain species of amendments which ought to be allowed and certain others which ought not to be allowed. Most of the requests for amendment of the pleadings are sought before the trial courts either before the commencement of trial or during or after the trial. Refusal to allow a party to amend his pleadings, in a case where such amendment ought to be granted, may result in injustice. Similarly, allowing a party to amend his pleadings, in a case where it ought not to be allowed, may also work injustice. In cases where such injustice is done at the trial stage, it may be a poor solace to the aggrieved party to be told that the order constituting the injustice done to him is not revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. and cannot also be corrected in a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India as well and that his remedy is to challenge the order in an appeal to be preferred against an adverse decree which might be passed by the trial court against him in due course. Even in such cases if the appellate court were to hold, after a long lapse of time, that the amendment of the pleadings sought by the party should have been granted, the only alternative available to such appellate court is to remand the case to the trial court for a fresh disposal which may or may not involve a de novo trial.

3. The sweep and amplitude of the supervisory and visitorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were examined at length by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai – 2003 (3) KLT 490 (S.C.) = 2003 (6) SCC 675. Some of the pithy observations by the apex court in the above decision can be summarized as follows:-

a) The curtailment of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec.115 C.P.C. by the amendment of the year 2002 does not take away the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari to a civil court nor is the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution taken away or whittled down. The power exist, untrammeled by the amendment of S.115 of the C.P.C. and is available to be exercised subject to rules of self discipline and practice which are well settled. (Vide Para 33).

b) The jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the High Court is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, forming its integral and essential feature, which cannot be tampered with much less taken away even by constitutional amendment, not to speak of a parliamentary legislation. The power of the High Court under Art.226 cannot be whittled down, nullified, curtailed, abrogated, diluted or taken away either by judicial pronouncement or by legislative enactments or even by an amendment of the Constitution. (Vide Para 28).

c) The parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 or 227 of the Constitution canno