Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Before deciding this petition which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court deserves a mention:-

Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329.

2. In this case it was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be called a writ petition and the High Courts cannot at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it, nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was further held that the parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of the power of superintendence were mentioned in Waryam Singh vs. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215, wherein it was held that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it "within the bounds of their authority."

3. It was further held in Shalini Shyam Shetty's case (supra) that in exercise of its power of superintendence, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it is a possible view and the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

4. It was further held in Shalini Shyam Shetty's case (supra) that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to be minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come in a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out about because an improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.

5. In the above mentioned case it was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in some High Courts, there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions and this is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 = RLW 2003(4) SC 523 and in view of the recent amendment under Section 115 of CPC, it is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed but in out view even if scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed but in our view even if scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed, that has not resulted into expanding the High Court's power of superintendence, it is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law.

6. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case that as a result of frequent interference by the Hon'ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with pending civil and criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the subordinate courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice.

7. In the present matter, appeal is pending in the first appellate court at the stage of final arguments and at this stage, the appellant Suresh Kumar, who is petitioner before us, had sought permission for amendment of his written statement. His application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 227/2008 - Suresh Kumar vs. Shashi Kala.

"17. Amen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document