CHANDRABHAN MEENA Vs. ABDUL JABBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dtd. 18/4/2015, passed by the Court of Additional District & Session Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 94/2012 by which the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC, for amendment in the plaint was dismissed.

(2.) The present writ petition was filed against an interlocutory order. When the matter was called upon hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to appraise the Court about the present status of the suit pending before the Additional District & Sessions Court, which was filed in the year 2012. The amendment in the plaint was preferred in September of 2014, after the closure of evidence of plaintiff-petitioner, which was rejected vide impugned order dtd. 18/4/2015 and the present matter is coming up on board in 2023. On perusal of the Court file, it is also noted that no genuine efforts have been made by the petitioner, since filing of the writ petition, to contest the matter.

(3.) Be that as it may, it is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 327. In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court only has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after consideration of the facts and material on record.