The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal and should only intervene in cases of patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or flouting of natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner to assail the judgment and order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2022 preferred by the respondent-State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the said Appeal has been allowed, and the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the Application moved by the respondent under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was set aside.

3. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is clearly not maintainable. The endeavour of the petitioner is to assail the impugned judgment and order before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, merely because there is no statutory right of appeal available to the petitioner to assail the impugned judgment and order before this Court.

4. The law is well settled with regard to the scope of jurisdiction which a High Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it. The parameters for interference by High Courts in exercise of their power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including in the case of Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215. This jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court only in order to keep tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of their authorities. Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised to ensure that courts and tribunals subordinate to the High Court exercise jurisdiction, which is vested in them and that they do not exceed their jurisdiction while, also, in cases where courts and tribunals decline to exercise jurisdiction, which is vested in them. The power of superintendence is exercised by the High Court in cases of patent perversity in the orders passed by the subordinate courts and tribunals, or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice, or basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. Under this jurisdiction, High Court cannot correct mere errors of law or facts, or act just because another view-than the one taken by the courts or tribunals subordinate to the High Court, appeals to the High Court. This jurisdiction is to be exercised very sparingly. I may take note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 in this regard.

5. No patent perversity; failure to exercise jurisdiction; order in excess of jurisdiction, or; conduct which could be said to have led to failure of justice has been pointed out by the petitioner. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.