MOHD SHARIF Vs. ADJ NO 2 SIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner sought for, relief, by way of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The prayer was rejected by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. When the revision preferred against the said orders was also found as not maintainable, the petitioner has to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In Surya Dv Rai v. Ram Chander Raj, (2003) 5 Supreme 390, their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from July 1, 2002 in Section 115 CPC cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction may intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice. While exercising jurisdiction the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof.

(3.) In Sadhna Lodha v. National Insurance Co., (2003) 3 SCC 524 the Apex Court propounded that where remedy for filing revision under Section 115 CPC is barred, petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie.