JAI CHAND THAKUR Vs. SAT PAL CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Shimla, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 2) and confirmed the interim order passed by the learned Trial Court restraining the Petitioner from raising construction on the suit land.

(2.) At the outset, I may deal with the preliminary submission raised by Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Respondent who has strenuously canvassed that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with such orders. In this regard, Mr. Bhardwaj has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2003 3 SCC 524 wherein the Apex Court held that mere wrong decision given by an inferior tribunal is not sufficient reason to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even in respect of supervisory jurisdiction, the Apex Court held that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction can only see whether the inferior tribunal has acted within the parameters and is not expected to correct the decision or re-appreciate the case.

(3.) In fact, the Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shety and Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 8 SCC 329 has dealt in detail with the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and laid down the following principles for the exercise of such jurisdiction: