CM(M) 370/2022

Page 1 of 12

$~1(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 370/2022

CHANDNI DUGAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. M.K. Arora, Adv.

versus

KHEM CHAND MUKIM

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Rishubh Mistry and Mr.

Ajay Kumar for Mr. D.K. Rai, Adv. for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

1.

Having perused the record and having heard learned Counsel

for the petitioner at some length, I confess that I am completely

clueless as to how the petitioner deemed the present case fit to invoke

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

J U D G M E N T(O R A L)

%

18.07.2022

2.

This Court has been observing, time and again, that there appear

to be serious misconceptions regarding the scope and ambit of Article

227 of the Constitution of India. Several of the petitions, which have

come up before this Court, seek intervention by this Court under

Article 227 by effectively calling upon this Court to steer and navigate

the proceedings before the court below. Article 227 is not intended to

serve any such purpose. The Court, under Article 227, exercises

superintending jurisdiction. Alternatively, it could be said that the

court acts in its supervisory capacity. It is only, therefore, where the

court below, while exercising its judicial powers, commits an error

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002757

CM(M) 370/2022

Page 2 of 12

that calls for correction in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, that

this Court would step in.

3.

In Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.¹

, the

Supreme Court has clarified, unexceptionably, that the Article 227

court is not concerned with the correctness of the order under

challenge. One may say that Article 227 concerns itself more with the

Court which passed the order than the order passed by the Court.

Article 227 jurisdiction is meant to be exercised in sparing and rare

cases where the manner of exercise, by the court below, of the

jurisdiction vested in it, calls for supervisory correction, essentially to

ensure that such an occasion does not arise again.

4.

The prayer in the present petition, reads thus:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

court may graciously be pleased to:-

i)

summon the trial court record;

ii)

accept and admit this petition;

iii)

stay the proceedings;

iv)

set-aside the impugned orders dated 24.03.2021 and

1.02.2022 passed by the Hon'ble court of Ms. Pooja talwar,

Ld. ADJ (south), Saket courts, Delhi in suit no. 11/2019 titled

as "khem chand mukim vs chandni dugar and ors" as well as

the order dated 28.03.2022, passed by the Hon'ble court

commissioner, in the interest of justice;

v)

to pass the certain directions to the trial court to decide

the pending application at priority, before proceeding further

in the pending trial,

1 (2003) 3 SCC 524

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002757

CM(M) 370/2022

Page 3 of 12

vi)

Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court

deems fit and proper be also passed/ granted in favour of the

petitioners and against the respondents, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

5.

As is apparent from a reading of the aforesaid prayer, the

petitioner is assailing two orders passed by the learned Additional

District Judge on 24^th March, 2021 and 1^st

February, 2022. Both

orders have been passed in CS 11/19 (Khem Chand Mukim v.

Chandni Dugar & Anr.).

6.

It is worthwhile to reproduce these two orders, as they

manifestly disclose the completely misdirected nature of the present

petition:

Order dated 24^th

An application under order 39 rule 2A CPC is also

pending. Since counsel for defendant no.1 is not available

March, 2021

“CS No. 11/19

Khem Chand Mukim

Vs.

Chandni Dugar And Anr.

24.03.2021

Present:

Sh. Ashok Dang, counsel for plaintiff with

plaintiff.

Defendant no.1