KRANTI VINAYAK Vs. RAKSHA RASGOTRA FORMERLY RAKSHA VINAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-party-in-person challenges order dated 14-9-2007 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.50 of 2006 by the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar, confirming order dated 23-5-2006 passed by learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Gandhinagar in Civil Misc. Appln.No.94 of 2005 rejecting his request for filing of complaint against the original plaintiff.

(2.) FACTS in short are that a suit being Special Civil Suit No.119 of 1992(renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.318 of 1993) was filed by the present respondent against the present petitioner. According to the petitioner, the present respondent cheated the petitioner of lacks of rupees and by cheating, fraud or collusion obtained judgment dated 2-5-1997 in the said suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 1998 before the High Court. The petitioner was given liberty to take appropriate steps before the competent court by moving separate application and/or substantive petition. He preferred Civil Misc. Appln.No.94 of 2005 in the Court of 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge (S.D.) and J.M.F.C., Gandhinagar in view of order passed by the High Court against the respondent-original plaintiff to file complaint for the offence punishable under Secs.191, 192, 193, 196, 204, 206, 210, 209, 385 and 420 of IP Code and under Secs.195, 340, 93, 451 and 452 of Cr.P.C. to take over possession of properties from the respondent and hand over to the petitioner after transfer of shares of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. in his name by deleting name of respondent from the shares of said company belonging to petitioner. However, said application was rejected by the learned Judge vide order dated 23-5-2006. Appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No.50 of 2006 filed before the learned Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar, was also rejected vide order dated 14-9-2007. Hence, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) LEARNED advocate, Mr.Jayant P.Bhatt for the respondent, has submitted that the application has been filed to harass the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in habit of preferring unnecessary proceedings. It is further submitted that both the orders passed by the court below are just, legal and proper and do not require to be interfered with. 7. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, it is clear that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was dissolved by mutual consent and they are separately residing. It appears from the record that the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2-5-1997 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.318 of 1993 allowed the suit partly in favour of the respondent after considering all the evidence available on record and hence, it cannot be said that the order has been obtained by the respondent by unfair means. It is also clear that the objections raised by the present petitioner in R.C.A.No.9 of 1997 against the respondent was also dismissed by the court below. The appeal preferred before the High Court being Second Appeal No.71 of 2002 was also dismissed. Criminal Revision Application No.102 of 1998 filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.318 of 1993 was withdrawn in order to move separate application before the appropriate Court. Thereafter, he preferred application to initiate criminal proceedings under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code against the respondent which was rejected by the court below. Appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge. It is apparent from the above that the petitioner is frequently litigating one way or the other against the respondent and hence, it has been rightly observed by the lower Appellate Court that the petitioner is a habitual litigant and is initiating proceedings with mala fide intention. No jurisdictional error has been committed by both the courts below in the impugned orders. 8. Reliance is placed on the case reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 385 in the case of Jai Singh and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another with Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Jai Singh and Others, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court in paragraph 13 as under : "13. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, 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 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 Constitution of India. 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 recognized constraints. It can not 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. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice." 9. Taking into consideration the above law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate the evidence. The power of the High Court under Article 227 can be exercised if any jurisdictional error has been committed by the court below. No jurisdictional error as having committed by both the courts below could be noticed by this Court in the impugned orders and hence, the present petition is required to be dismissed. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.