The court reaffirmed the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 to remedy grave injustices and upheld the lower court's decision.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral )

The present petition has been filed laying challenge to the impugned order dated 21.03.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge (7), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.287 of 2010, titled Vijay Singh vs. Akshay Deogar, whereby an application, under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code , filed by respondents No.1 and 2, has been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition, pleadings, documents appended thereto and the impugned order.

3. The present respondents are the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the present petitioner and mandatory injunction against respondent No.3. In the suit so filed, respondents No.1 and 2 state that vide sale deed dated 28.12.1977, land had been sold by them to one Mr. Parkash Shankar. The said Parkash Shankar vide sale deed dated 03.08.1999 sold the land to the present petitioner/defendant No.1. The land sold by virtue of the aforesaid two sale deeds has been referred in the revenue record as “Jai Safed”, i.e. open space.

4. The allegations in the plaint is that Parkash Shankar, by virtue of sale deed dated 03.08.1999, had sold more land to the present petitioner/defendant No.1 than what he had purchased. Therefore, suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, in the case at hand, was filed.

5. When the matter was at the stage of recording of evidence, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code had been filed for placing on record documents detailed in Paragraph-3 of the same. A copy of the application is placed along with present petition at Page-10 of the paper book. A perusal of the documents sought to be relied upon which are detailed in Paragraph-3 of the application reflect that insofar as documents detailed at Sr.No.(i) copy of Jamabandi, (vi) to (ix)-certified copy of proceedings and orders passed by the competent authorities, are concerned, they are all perse admissible documents.

6. Insofar as documents detailed at Sr.No.(iii) and (iv) are concerned, these are certified copies of the sale deeds, mention whereof has been made in the plaint and has been admitted to in the written statement filed. Specific mention of sale deed is made in Paragraphs-2 and 3 of the plaint at Page-57 of the paper book. Admission qua the same exists in the written statement at Page-63 of the paper book. Acquisition of title qua the suit land by respondents No.1 & 2 is based on documents mentioned at Sr.No.(ii)-sale certificate & (iv)-relinquishment deed, of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code . The title of the respondents No.1 & 2 is not denied by the present petitioner.

7. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another , (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel , (2022) 4 SCC 181 ).

8. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated in the impugned order and herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jur