The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked when a specific statutory appellate remedy is available against the impugned order, as the supervisory power serves to keep subordinate courts within their authority, rather than acting as a substitute for an efficient statutory appellate forum.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this civil miscellaneous petition.

3. Since, hearing of this civil miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

C.M.P. No. 1216 of 2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. Vide order dated 17.02.2026 in this civil miscellaneous petition notice was issued to the opposite party keeping the issue of maintainability open.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the issue of maintainability be decided first before further proceeding with the case.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the power has been exercised vide the impugned order either under Section 7 or under Section 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 so, in view of Section 47 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by a Court under Section 7 or under Section 25 of the Act.

5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that in view of the specific remedy of the appeal, it is not open for this Court to exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohamed Ali vs. V. Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538 wherein, it was observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that whenever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy under CPC will deter the High Court and therefore, the High Court shall not entertain a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the CPC itself and went on to hold in paragraph no.19 as under:-

“19. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the ex parte judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in view of a specific remedy of appeal as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the revision petition under Article 227 challenging the ex parte judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and in quashing and setting aside the same in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

6. In this respect, the learned counsel for the opposite party also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has summarized the principles on the exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in paragraph no.49 of which reads 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 the 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 Court