LAXMINARAYAN TIWARI Vs. SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.07.2012, whereby his application under Section 151 CPC is rejected by the Court below. The petitioner preferred the said application stating that the Trial Court by order dated 28.06.2010 in Case No. 13-A/2010 directed the defendants to vacate the shop and handover the possession to Sanjay Agrawal. It is stated that present petitioner has not been given proper hearing and opportunity to defend himself in the said case. It is further alleged that notice is not served on the petitioner in the said case. Another ground raised is that petitioner is running his business of cold drinks and S.T.D.-P.C.O. and he be not evicted. It is further stated in the said application that if the petitioner is evicted, it will be difficult for him to survive.

(2.) ON the basis of aforesaid factual backdrop, it is stated that since application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2010/01.07.2010, till decision of the said application, the execution proceedings be stayed.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is confirmed till High Court. His application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is pending, which will be dealt with by the Court below in accordance with law. However, there is no right to stop the proceedings by preferring an application under Section 151 of CPC on the ground that Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC application is pending. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the fact in this petition that in appellate stage against the judgment and decree, he was served and still did not appear in the proceedings. IT is also not in dispute that tenancy was joint. In this factual backdrop, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. The Court below in its discretion has disallowed the said application. IT cannot be said to be an illegal order or an order passed without jurisdiction. Scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. Interference can be made if the order is without jurisdiction, suffers from serious procedural irregularity or impropriety or shown to be perverse in nature. Even a wrong order is not liable to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution. The basic purpose to exercise this jurisdiction is to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority and not for exercising powers like an Appellate Court. Interference should be made sparingly in public interest and not for granting relief in individual cases. Borrowing the words from the judgment of Supreme Court, it is profitable to mention that this Court cannot exercise its powers as routine as an Appellate Court on a drop of hat. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]. The relevant portion of the said judgment held as under:-