MOHAMMAD YASEEN SHRU Vs. HAKIM KHALID AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed in terms of S. 115, Code of Civil Procedure. Besides this, power of this Court has been invoked under S. 104 of Jammu and Kashmir Constitution. Under both these provisions of law, the orders passed by the District Judge, Baramulla on 22-9-1993 and 27-4-1995 have been called in question. The order passed on 22-9-1993 directed the petitioner to pay the subsidy amount to the contesting respondents subject to his furnishing an undertaking. This order seems to have not been complied with as a result of that, order dated 27-4-1995 came to be passed on a contempt petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Both the orders are admittedly passed in terms of Rr. 2 and 2-A of O. 39 Order XLIII, R. 1 (r) makes both these orders appealable. The appeal against these orders lies to the High Court itself. Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, cannot be applied to orders wherefrom appeals lie to the High Court, Therefore, revision in terms of this provision of law is not maintainable.

(3.) So far as S. 104 is concerned, the same reads mutatis mutandis to Art. 227 of the Federal Constitution. Application of Art. 227 by authoritative judgments of the Apex Court, has been confined to superintendence and control of the High Court. The same is not supposed to saddle the High Court with powers of appeal. This principle was brought home in Sheikh Mohd. Ummer Sahib v. Cadalashker Hashim, reported in AIR 1970 SC 61. Again in Mohd. Younis v. Mohd. Mustaqeem, reported in AIR 1984 SC 38, the Supreme Court laid down, that Art, 227 relates to supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court only. This provision could not enable the High Court to correct errors of law which could have been found in the impugned order. The same view was taken in AIR 1972 SC 1598 It was in that case held that the object of Art. 227 was to see that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority and do not transgress the same bounds. However, the errors in law committed by the subordinate courts could not be corrected by exercise of power under Art. 227.