NEELAM CHAUDHARI Vs. KHAJAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the order dated 24.2.2015 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2004, whereby the application 96 Ga filed by the petitioner has been allowed in part and photocopy of will dated 5.4.1983 (paper No. 99 Ga) has been taken on record but permission to prove the same has been declined on the ground that permission to prove photocopy of the will cannot be granted.

(2.) THE appellate court is invested with the power under Order 41 Rule 27 to admit or refuse to admit a document in appeal. Similarly, it is also invested with the power to refuse to permit a party to prove a document, original whereof has not been brought on record. While refusing to grant permission to prove photo copy of the will filed at the appellate stage, the appellate court has taken notice of the fact that before trial court, full opportunity was granted to the defendant IInd set (from whom the petitioner is the assignee pendente lite) to prove the will, but they failed to do so. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath and another : AIR 1954 SC 215 a constitution bench of the Supreme Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised sparingly and only in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and it is not meant to correct errors of fact or even of law. Same view was taken in a subsequent constitution bench judgement in State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela : AIR 1968 SC 1481. In a more recent judgement in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil : 2010 (8) SC 329, the Supreme Court held that though the view taken in the case of Surya Dev Rai : (2003) 6 SCC 675 regarding maintainability of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders of civil courts was referred to larger bench (and was not approved) but there was no divergence of opinion in relation to the principles laid down therein regarding the power of superintendence under Article 227. Their Lordships quoted with approval the following passage of the judgement from the case of Satya Dev Rai (supra): - -

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no jurisdictional error on part of the appellate court in passing the impugned order. The appeal is pending since the year 2004. The order impugned is a purely interlocutory order. The petitioner will get opportunity to challenge the order in question in case ultimately the appeal is decided against him and the appellate judgement is subjected to challenge.