Interference with lower court orders under Article 227 should be sparingly exercised and limited to cases of patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or flouting of natural justice.

S.C. Sharma, J.

The petitioner before this Court, who is plaintiff before the learned trial Court, is aggrieved with the order dated 27/09/14 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.14-A/2013, by which, his application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 10/08/16 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No.02/2016, by which, the appeal against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge has been dismissed, meaning thereby, both the Courts below have declined to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the present petitioner has filed the civil suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction and it was stated in the civil suit that husband of the defendant No.1 was real brother of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant Nos. 2 & 3, who are again the real brothers of the plaintiff. It was also stated that oral partition took place between the family and the land in question came to the share of the plaintiff. It was also stated that present petitioner is still in possession of the land. Along with the suit an application was preferred by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff was not able to prove the factum of possession and the trial Court after taking into account all the documents produced by the plaintiff has given finding of fact that the plaintiff is not in the possession of the suit property and in those circumstances, the application preferred under Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected.

3. The appellate Court has again on the basis of evidence brought by the plaintiff on record has given finding of fact that learned trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 27/09/14, meaning thereby, the Courts below have been arrived at a finding of fact that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and both the Courts below have declined to grant injunction in the matter.

4. This Court, after careful consideration of the impugned orders, is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, does not warrant any interference in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders passed by the Courts below are neither perverse nor suffers from any jurisdictional error.

5. 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 (sup