HARCHAND SINGH Vs. SUDAGAR SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.2.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Phul as well as order dated 8.10.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Bathinda thereby rejecting the application moved by the Plaintiff-Petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.

(2.) Perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that Plaintiff-Petitioner could not prove that Defendants-Respondents have demolished any wall standing on the disputed property in violation of the interim order. In view of this concurrent finding of fact, I am not inclined to invoke my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jai Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., 2010 9 SCC 385 has observed that exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised 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.