Intervention under Article 227 is discretionary and should be exercised with caution, primarily to maintain public confidence in the judicial system, rather than simply granting relief in individual cases.

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the 2nd judgment debtor in E.P.No.75 of 2017 in O.P.No.212 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. O.P.No.212 of 2007 was filed by the 1st respondent seeking return of gold ornaments and money. That original petition was decreed as per the judgment dated 10.07.2018 allowing the 1st respondent to realise Rs.20,000/- and also 25 sovereigns of gold or its money equivalent of Rs.2 lakhs, together with interest. The petitioner has carried the matter in appeal before this Court by filing Mat.Appeal No.861 of 2008, but that appeal was dismissed for default. The petitioner would contend that only recently he came to know about the dismissal of that appeal, and therefore he filed M.J.C.No.105 of 2022 seeking to readmit the appeal (Ext.P4) along with an application to condone the delay of 1262 days. Pending consideration of the said interlocutory applications, the Execution Court is proceeding with the Execution Petition. The petitioner therefore seeks an order directing the Family Court to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in E.P.No.75 of 2017 in O.P.No.212 of 2007 till the disposal of Ext.P4.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Considering the relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the respondent is dispensed with.

3. InJai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ (2010) 9 SCC 385 ], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under of the Constitution, 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. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the . It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the 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.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 was examined in detail by this Court inSubaida v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Thrissur District and others [2019 KLT SN 68) (rendered by one among us, Anil K. Narendran J), where it was held, “The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases, but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration in the larger public interest, whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances. Therefore, the power under may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under , both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come