The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders of subordinate courts is limited. It can only be exercised in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

ORDER

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.09.2018 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, cancellation of sale deed/single lease deed, possession and permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the respondent No. 11 i.e. P.P. Colonizers Private Ltd. vide registered sale deed dated 11.03.2015 sold the disputed land in favour of M/s. Name Developers which, came to be impleaded as defendant No.11-A in the suit on application by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 seeking amendment in the plaint seeking to assail the registered sale deed dated 11.03.2015 executed by the defendant No.11 in favour of the defendant No.11-A and its cancellation. Learned trial Court has, vide order impugned herein, rejected the application.

3. Assailing the order dated 20.09.2018, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the amendments sought were consequential in nature on account of impleadment of the defendant No.11-A and pertained to subsequent developments which should have been allowed. He contended that in order to have complete and effective relief, it was essential for him to have assailed the sale deed dated 11.03.2015 and to have a decree of its cancellation. He also submitted that the order impugned dated 20.09.2018 is non-speaking one. He has placed reliance upon judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. versus K.K. Modi & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) SCC 385 and Abdul Rehman & Anr. versus Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. reported in 2013(1) DNJ 75.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. A perusal of the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC reveals that the defendant No.11-A was impleaded as a party with specific stipulation that it was being impleaded as assignee of the defendant No. 11 in its footsteps and it would not be permissible for the newly impleaded defendant No. 11 to file any written statement as the written statement of the defendant No. 11 was already on record or to set up any new defence. As a matter of fact, the order has been passed by the learned trial Court exercising its jurisdiction under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. Therefore, no consequential amendment in the plaint was required. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of challenge to the sale deed dated 11.03.2015, he would not get the effective relief, is misplaced in view of the principle of "lis pendens" as envisaged under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra) and Abdul Rehman (supra); but, the same has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down parameters for interference by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the orders passed by the learned trial Courts in following terms:-

" In Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954 SC 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:

"This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in

"Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. vs. Sukumar Mukherjee", AIR 1951 CAL 193 (SB) 1 (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors."

7. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta, AIR 1975 SC 1297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reaff