K C GEORGE Vs. JOHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 212/04 before the Munsiff 's Court, Mavelikara. The suit is for fixation of the eastern boundary of the plaint 1 to 4 schedule property in R.S.No. 277/101 of Chennithala Village. The defendants are the State of Kerala and its officials. The crux of the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the boundary may be fixed between the property belonging to the plaintiff and the property acquired by the defendants for establishment of the Pamba Irrigation Project.

(2.) The respondent herein filed an application as I.A.No. 1169/04 to get himself impleaded as the additional 5th respondent. The application was stoutly opposed by the petitioner herein. The learned Munsiff, Mavelikara, under Ext.PS, overruled" the objections of the petitioner and directed impleadment of the respondent herein as the 5th defendant in the suit. The order is not re-visable and it is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come before this Court with this writ petition.

(3.) At the very out set it is necessary for this Court to remind itself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order is not revisable under the amended C.P.C. But notwithstanding the fact that the revision is not maintainable under Sec. 115 of the C.P.C., in an appropriate case this Court has jurisdictional competence to interfere with the orders of the Subordinate Courts in exercise of its visitorial, supervisory and correctional jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. But it is by now trite, and it is not necessary to advert to the precedents which have been cited copiously at the Bar, that such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Any and every error in facts or law committed by a Subordinate Court will not by itself persuade this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Is there any error of jurisdiction? Is there abuse of the process of court? Do such errors, if any, lead to failure/miscarriage of justice? Normally, error of law or facts committed by courts in the course of proceedings will have to wait for correction until the final orders are passed. Interference at an earlier stage which is not permitted by exercise of the revisional jurisdiction can be made by invoking the jurisdiction under Art. 227 only in rare and exceptional cases where the court is satisfied that failure/miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.