DATED

02.06.2021, PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANVI IN

O.S.NO.171/2014, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW

THE PETITIONER TO LEAD / ADDUCE / DEPOSE EVIDENCE AS

DW-1, THROUGH HER HUSBAND GPA HOLDER AS PRAYED IN

THE CHIEF EXAMINATION IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT, VIDE

ANNEXURE-D1.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR

ORDERS

ON

10.01.2022,

COMING

ON

FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT

THIS

DAY,

COURT

MADE

FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

This writ petition is filed by the defendant No.5

in O.S.No.171/2014 on the file of the trial Court seeking

relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the

suit schedule property. The GPA holder of the defendant

No.5 has filed an application stating that the GPA holder of

the defendant No.5 is the husband of the defendant No.5

4

and will adduce evidence accordingly. The plaintiffs

contended that the said GPA holder of the defendant No.5

is also the GPA holder of defendant No.4 and the suit is

filed for partition and declaration and therefore, there is no

necessity to accept the application.

3.

Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that

the entire trial revolves around the fact that the plaintiffs

have stated that the defendant No.4 is not the owner of

the suit schedule property and the GPA holder cannot

depose on his personal knowledge in respect of the suit

schedule property. It is also forthcoming from the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties

that the respondent No.7 herein is died in the year 1994

and prima facie, I find that the documents marked by the

respondents herein before the trial Court would indicate

that the alleged Shareef (respondent No.7 herein) has

opened an account in Syndicate bank on 12.09.2014.

However, the death certificate would indicate that he died

in the year 1994. Looking into the background of these

5

aspects, where there is an element of fraud is alleged to

have been mooted by the parties and in that view of the

matter, taking into consideration the finding recorded by

the trial Court, I am of the view of that the reasons

assigned by the trial Court is just and proper which do not

call for interference in this writ petition.

4.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court while adverting to

scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the

case of RADHESHYAM AND ANOTHER v. CHHABINATH AND

OTHERS reported in (2009)5 SCC 616 held as follows:

“Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the

High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari.

Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High

Courts with a power of superintendence which is to

be sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts

within the bounds of their authority. Under Article

227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be

examined only in very exceptional cases when

manifest

miscarriage

of

justice

has

been

occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be

exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law.”

6

5.

The said aspect of the matter was also

considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

JAISINGH AND OTHERS v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF

DELHI AND ANOTHER reported in (2010)9 SCC 385. It is

held as follows:

“The High Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, has the jurisdiction to ensure

that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or

quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested

in them, within the bounds of their authority. The

High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to

ensure that they act in accordance with the well-

established principles of law.”

It is further held that:

“It cannot be exercised like a “bull in a china

shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court,

or

tribunal,

acting

within

the

limits

of

its

jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be

exercised in cases where orders have been passed

in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of

fundamental principles of law or justice.”

6.

The question relating to exercise of jurisdiction

conferre