1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A civil suit has been filed by respondents No.1 and 2 in the year 1986 for eviction of the tenants and as per the plaint's statement, the petitioner is a sub-tenant. The petitioner in suit which was filed in the year 1986 has filed a return statement on 23.1.2007.

2. The application was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh for impleadment under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the trial Court has dismissed the same on 15.7.2014. It is pertinent to note that the State Government has opted not to challenge the order passed by the trial Court and the petitioner who is a sub-tenant as per the plaint averment has challenged the order.

3. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the trial Court and the same reflects that on some pretext or the other the trial of the suit which is pending since 1986 is being delayed. The trial Court has also observed that it is a suit between landlord and tenant. The trial Court has also observed that State Government is not a necessary party as it is a suit between landlord and tenant. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application preferred by State of M.P. by the impugned order dated 15.7.2014. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor from any perversity.

4. The apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010(8) SCC 329, in paragraph 49 held as under:-

“49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated :

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power 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 Court or Tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra), and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra), have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'.

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

(h