The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the principles governing the exercise of such power.

Tashi Rabstan, J.:-

1. Through the medium of this petition, filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner-Nimrata Kumari is seeking setting aside of order dated 19.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu, whereby the trial Court while allowing the application of respondent-Ajay Kumar permitted him to file the amended divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The facts-in-brief are that respondent has filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce in his favour, in which the petitioner herein has also filed objections. The trial Court has also framed the issues. However, during the pendency of said petition, the respondent filed an application for amendment of the petition, to which the petitioner herein also filed her response. The trial Court vide order dated 19.07.2014, while allowing the application, permitted the respondent herein to file the amended divorce petition. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner through the medium of present petition.

2. The precise ground taken by the petitioner is that under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure no power of amendment can be exercised by the trial Court; the order impugned therefore is without jurisdiction and is contrary to the rules. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the order impugned is not speaking one as no detailed reasons have been given in the order. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a case reported as Ali Mohammad Magloo v. Abdul Hamid Magloo, 2007 (3) JKJ 58 [HC].

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that the trial Court after exhaustively examining the proceedings and hearing the parties allowed the application for amendment of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He further argued that the petition was not on the verge of conclusion and the trial Court was well within its powers to hear and allow the application. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon cases reported as Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahmad, (2008) 3 SCC 717 and Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626.

4. Heard learned counsel.

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 power of 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 order impugned is neither appealable nor revisable under Section 115 of the CPC. Petitioner has thus chosen to file this petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K which corresponds to Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Judicial pronouncement as to the object and scope of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Section 104 of the State Constitution) would leave little scope to interfere with the orders of the subordinate courts as a matter of routine. This power cannot be taken as a right of another appeal to the aggrieved party. Nor the power can be invoked to point out an error of law or fact in the order or decision of a subordinate court as has been sought by the petitioner in this case. This power cannot be used to make out that the decision of the subordinate court could have been or must have been other than what it is. The fact of this Court having vast powers under Articles 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 have to be utilized very cautiously, carefully, sparingly and in rarest of the rare cases.

7. The Apex Court in case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 AIR SCW 6387 has observed