SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Raj) 766

S.K.SHARMA
MOHD. SHARIF – Appellant
Versus
ADJ NO. 2, SIKAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AJAY GUPTA

Judgment


S. K. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner sought for, relief, by way of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The prayer was rejected by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. When the revision preferred against the said orders was also found as not maintainable, the petitioner has to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) SUPERVISORY jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In Surya Dv Rai v. Ram Chander Raj, (2003) 5 Supreme 390, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from July 1, 2002 in Section 115 CPC cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction may intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice. While exercising jurisdiction the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top