Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Jitendra Prasad Mahto and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Nirmal Mahto and Ors. - Respondents
C.M.P. No.624 of 2023
Decided On : 12-01-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory powers of High Courts - The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting gross abuse of jurisdiction or unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction by subordinate courts. The court emphasized that it cannot interfere merely due to errors of law or fact. (Paras 13, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed against the order rejecting the marking of a document as an exhibit in a Title Suit, which had previously been partly allowed. The petitioner failed to challenge the earlier order, leading to the dismissal of the current petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the trial court's decision to reject the petition for marking the document as an exhibit.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petition to mark the document as an exhibit after it had already been dismissed in a prior order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the supervisory power under Article 227 is not to correct mere errors but to ensure that subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction and adhere to legal principles.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) :
1. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.11.2013 and 18.04.2023 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-VIII, Hazaribag in Title Suit No.28 of 2008 namely, “Certificate of Auction Sale of Land”, whereby and whereunder, the petition was filed dated 17.11.2022 praying therein for marking one document as contained in serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009 exhibited.
2. The said petition has been rejected vide impugned order against which the present petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the document as contained in serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009 could not be marked as exhibit which is the certified copy of the auction certificate in case no.508/1918-19 and as such, the said document is having bearing in deciding the said suit and as such, the prayer has been made to mark the said document as exhibit.
4. The plaintiff to the suit has seriously objected by placing the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.11.2013, whereby and whereunder, the document as contained in the list dated 12.08.2009 as under serial no.5 and 6 has been sought to be marked as exhibit but the said petition filed vide petition dated 10.09.2012.
5. The said petition was partly allowed for marking the document at serial no.6 as exhibit while rejected for the document at serial no.5 vide the aforesaid order but the petitioner herein, the defendant to the suit did not challenge the said order before the Higher Court and consequently, the said prayer has been made, therefore, the prayer made in the petition dated 17.11.2022 cannot be said to be proper and is not fit to be allowed.
6. Learned trial Court, on appreciating the rival submission made on behalf of the parties, has rejected the petition dated 17.11.2022, against which, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Awnish Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner who was the defendant to the suit was in bonafide impression that while partly allowing the petition dated 12.08.2009 by which the document no.6 was allowed to be marked as exhibit has thought that the document in serial no.5 has also been allowed to be marked, therefore, it was not thought of challenging the said order, hence, there is bonafide mistake and hence, the petition has been filed but the learned trial Court, without appreciating the aforesaid fact has rejected the said petition, therefore, the present petition.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material available on record as also considered the order impugned.
9. The admitted fact herein is that as per the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as also what this court has gathered from the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the two documents in the list dated 12.08.2009 as under serial no.5 and 6 had been sought to be marked exhibited by filing petition on 10.09.2012.
10. The said petition was partly allowed vide order dated 29.11.2013, by which, the document at serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009 was allowed but marking of document in serial no.5 has not been allowed.
11. It is the further admitted fact that the order dated 29.11.2013 has never been challenged by the petitioner before the higher forum but again the petition was filed on 17.11.2022 seeking therein the prayer to mark the document in serial no.5 of the list dated 12.08.2009.
12. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the fact that the marking of the document as exhibit at serial no.5 since has been rejected vide order dated 29.11.2013 and the same has not been challenged before the Higher Forum, hence, the same prayer which has already been set at rest cannot be said to be
AI
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting gross abuses of jurisdiction, not mere errors of law or fact.
(1) Striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Once specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is available, High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off ....
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 227 and the need for supervisory correction in exercising jurisdiction.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, not to correct mere errors of law or fact.
The Family Courts Act, 1984 allows for the admissibility of evidence that assists in resolving matrimonial disputes, overriding other laws including the Indian Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article-227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or failure of just....
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
