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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.3/State, Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Abdul Wahab, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.Nos.4,5 and 6.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.02.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Ranchi, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.334 of 2022, arising out of Final Decree Case No.194 of 2020, corresponding to Original Partition Suit No.767 of 2017.

3. Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Civil Miscellaneous petition was filed stating that the original plaintiff namely, Soma Oraon has instituted Original Suit No.767 of 2017 against Kamal Oraon and others in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Ranchi praying therein a decree claiming partition of half share in the suit property. He submits that in the partition suit, ex-parte decree was passed against the defendants on 18.12.2019. He further submits that during the pendency of the final decree proceeding, the original plaintiff, namely, Soma Oraon died and the names of Arjun Oraon and Shakuntala Devi were substituted in his place and, accordingly, final decree was prepared and thereafter the petitioner-herein has filed the intervention petition before the concerned court under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for his impleadment as party defendant in the said suit on the ground that the intervenor is the son of the deceased plaintiff namely, Soma Oraon, but his name could not be substituted in place of the original plaintiff since the deceased and he is the legal heir and successor of Soma Oraon, and thus, he is entitled to get share in the property and the decree has been obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. He submits that the learned court without making any enquiry has been pleased to reject the said petition by the impugned order and as such, the said order is not in accordance with law, and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner herein has relied on three documents to prove himself as son of late Soma Oraon and such documents are Aadhar Card, Voter Slip and the third is Ration Card. He submits that the learned court has interpreted all the three documents in the impugned order and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the son of late Soma Oraon. He further submits that if any party is aggrieved with the final decree proceeding, only the appeal is the remedy and petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He further submits that wife of late Soma Oraon namely, Shakuntala Devi, has clearly stated before the learned court as she is the only wife of late Soma Oraon and only O.P.No.1 is born out of the wedlock between the O.P.No.2 and late Soma Oraon. On this ground, he submits that learned court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the impugned order.

5. It is an admitted position that the suit has been decreed and thereafter the final preparation of decree proceeding in which the petition has been filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C by the petitioner herein for impleadment.

6. From the impugned order, it transpires that the learned court has enquired in detail about the relevancy