HC Can’t Interfere With Order Of Inferior Courts To Correct Mere Errors Of Fact Or Law Exercising Art 227: Jharkhand HC [Read Order]

The Single Bench of Jharkhand High court, even as considering a writ petition below Article 227, held that the High court could not interfere with the order of inferior courts or tribunals to accurate mere errors of fact or regulation while exercising the strength beneath Article 227. In a case (Panpati Devi v. Ram Barat Ram), the petitioner contested the order of the appellate courtroom, rejecting their petition for modification of pleadings underneath Order VI Rule 17 examine with Section 151 CPC.

The petitioner repelled the finding of the trial courtroom in a name in the shape that the sale deed became acquired utilizing fraudulent approach in an enchantment before the district court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a utility for amendment of the written statement below Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The respondents astutely refuted the amendment, and sooner or later, the appellate court rejected the utility insomuch because the change is extraneous for the cause of adjudication of the attraction.

The petitioner challenged the order of the appellant court docket and assured the interference of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad of Jharkhand High Court, after drawing its attention to several Supreme Court decisions, succinctly determined that the High Court under Article 227 can not count on limitless prerogatives to correct all species of hardship or incorrect selections. Further, the court held that the electricity beneath Article 227 must not be exercised unless there was an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction by way of the court docket or tribunal or gross abuse of jurisdiction, or unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in the courts or tribunals.

Further, the court docket has outstanding between the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution. Where whilst exercise the energy under the former, the High Court normally annuls or quashes an order or intending, however, whilst exercise power underneath the latter, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceedings, can also substitute the impugned order via the order which the inferior tribunal must have made. The High Court refrained from intruding with the order of the appellant courtroom and disregarded the petition by assigning why it fails to be a fit case to be entertained beneath Article 227 of the constitution.