Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Nand Lal – Appellant
Versus
Hukmiya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the present petitioner on 13.09.2022. In the suit so filed, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC had been filed by the present petitioner seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, creating charge, changing the nature and dispossessing the petitioner from the suit land.
2. In the application so filed, it was categorically averred that the suit property is ancestral in nature. Hence, by virtue of a registered Will bearing No.64 dated 03.07.1984, deceased Narotam could not have executed the same in favour of respondent No.1.
3. Per contra, in the response filed, it was categorically denied that the suit property is ancestral coparcenary property. It had been contested by the respondents that the suit landstood partitioned through the concerned competent revenue Court and therefore, there is no question of the alleged suit land being joint. Instrument of partition had been prepared on 21.05.2022 and the same had been given effect to. It was categorically averred that the share of deceased Narotam
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not correcting errors of law or fact.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting conclusions of lower courts.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or legal errors unless they result in a m....
Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct subordinate court errors unless manifest injustices occur; findings on temporary injunction based on ownership records must be respected pe....
The execution of a decree is barred by limitation if not filed within the prescribed period, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re-evaluation of evidence or legal err....
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their authority, not to correct errors of law or fact.
Amendment of plaint - Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
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.
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is not appellate but supervisory, limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority without correcting factual findings.
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
