The jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of law, not to rectify errors of subordinate courts.

The present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division Sendhwa District Barwani, by which the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected.

The facts of the case is that the respondent/ Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit against the petitioner/Defendant and the same is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sendhwa, District - Barwani (M.P.), vide Case No. RCSB : 10/2023 for Recovery of Money.

During the Pendency of the suit the Plaintiff led evidence and closed the same. The suit was fixed for Evidence of Defendant. On 18.07.2024 after the Defendant’s evidence, the Petitioner/Defendant preferred an application under Order 16 Rule 01 of the C.P.C. The said application were replied by the Respondent/Plaintiff. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the plaintiff has filed a suit for money decree. It is submitted that the amount which is being claimed has already been paid to the plaintiff and in order to prove the aforesaid fact, he has filed an application to summon the Manager of the Bank or any Officer of the Bank of India Branch Sendhwa alongwith record.

Upon perusal of the order sheets, this Court finds that the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and the same application under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC was rejected by order dated 11.07.2024 but the petitioner did not challenge the said order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is fixed for final arguments.

It was the duty of the defendant to prove the fact that the amount claimed in the plaint has already been paid by him. He could have discharged the said burden by adducing his evidence and the details of the accounts to show the payment. At the stage of final arguments, the present application has been filed to summon the Manager or any Officer of the bank of to prove the payment alongwith record. The earlier same application has already been rejected on 11.07.2024 and the petitioner did chose not to challenge the same.

In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct the errors of subordinate courts within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order is passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental principals of law and justice. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgments of Jai Singh and Anr Vs. MCD reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 and Salini Shetty Vs. Rajendra S. Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC

329. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.