GEETA Vs. CHANDIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned.

(2.) BY the order impugned dated 17.01.2012 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara (herein after referred to as 'the trial court') allowed an application under sec.10, CPC filed by the defendant-respondent No.20 in Civil Original Suit No.14/2008, for staying proceedings of the civil suit till decision of the revenue suit.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 elaborately considered the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - the High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principle of natural justice have been flouted. In exercise of power of superintendence, High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words, the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.