1) Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing order dated 04.04.2012 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu in a case titled Amit Kapoor v. Bharat Bhushan and another (hereinafter for short as impugned order) by virtue of which application filed by the petitioner for framing of additional issues in the suit has been dismissed on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.

2) It appears that respondent No.2 (Amit Kapoor) has filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment of the shop constructed at Plot No.77, Janipur Housing Colony, Jammu and for the recovery of rent to the tune of Rs.1200/- and Rs.2,20,000 from defendant No.2 (Sat Pal) for use and occupation of the portion of the shop, which is subjudice before the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu. Vide order dated 17.09.2011, trial Court framed eight issues and petitioner in his written statement has taken specific pleas that suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties and plaintiff has neither sworn duly attested affidavit in support of plaint nor the duplicate copy of the plaint supported with an affidavit as required under law and applicant has neither attorned the plaintiff as his landlord or owner nor even has paid him rent of the suit shop. During pendency of the suit, petitioner filed application for framing of additional issues and respondent No.2 filed objections to the said application. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application for framing of additional issues vide order dated 04.04.2012 by holding that there exists no grounds for framing of the additional issues. It is this order, which is called in question in the present petition.

3) Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that impugned order has been passed in hot haste; without application of mind and without taking into consideration the grounds taken by the petitioner-defendant No.1 in the application.

4) Petitioner has not questioned the competence-jurisdiction of the trial Court. Petitioner has also not averred in the writ petition that trial Court or appellate Court have passed the order without or in excess of jurisdiction.

5) The maintainability of the petition is put under cloud by its very own averments on the ground that Civil Procedure Code has undergone a sea change with the amendment of 2009. The amendment has restricted the powers of the revisional Court. Virtually, petition is in the nature of revision petition and if such a practice is adopted and allowed that will render the aim and object of the amendment infructuous and meaningless. The fact of this Court having vast powers under Article 226 and 227 is undisputed, but care has to be taken when the same is warranted to be exercised, because the powers under such Articles has to be utilized very cautiously, carefully, sparingly and in rarest of the rare cases.

6) The Apex Court in case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported as 2010 AIR SCW 6387 has observed that there is tendency in High Courts to entertain petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the orders against which revision is barred in terms of amended Act of CPC. It is apt to reproduce Para 80, 81 and 82 of the judgment supra herein:-

“80. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev (supra) and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 of CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document