SEEMA KUSHWAH Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD KATARE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenges the oder dated 23.09.2013 whereby the Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner / defendant No.1 preferred under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. The Court below opined that petitioner earlier filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. which was rejected by the Court below.

(2.) Against this order of trial Court, the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred first and second appeals which were rejected and the order attained finality. It is further opined that petitioner preferred yet another objection under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The said application was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff preferred appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Court on 23.07.2012 by directing the Trial Court to frame the preliminary issue and decide the matter on merits. In obedience of Appellate Court's order, aforesaid, issue No.6 was framed and by the order dated 26.04.2013 it was decided that issue No.6 will be decided along with other issues because evidence needs to be recorded to decide the said issue. The order dated 01.05.2013 passed by the Trial Court by which it was decided that question raised by the defendant No.1 is a mixed question of facts and law and therefore, it will be decided after recording evidence, has attained finality. Considering the aforesaid, the Court below opined that in view of earlier orders, the application under Order 21 Rule 101 cannot be entertained. The petitioner has not chosen to even file application under Order 21 Rule 101 which is decided by the Court below. Petitioner has also not filed the order dated 26.04.2013 referred in the impugned order.

(3.) Thus, I find no reason to disbelieve the findings given by the Court below. The Court below has given plausible findings. The order, even otherwise cannot be said to be without authority of law. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be without jurisdiction, suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Interference cannot be made in a routine manner on drop of hat. This was held by the Supreme Court in (Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 8 SCC 329. There is no ground on which interference at this stage is warranted.