HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M P No. 2078 / 2018
ABHISHEK VERMA VS. SMT. PREETI VERMA
— 1 —
INDORE, Dated : 03/08/2018
Mr. SC Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
respondent.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present
writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12/2/2018
passed by the trial Court in HMA Case No. 1407/2014.
Facts

of the case reveal that divorce petition has been
filed by the wife, who is respondent before this Court, and
earlier an application was preferred u/S. 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act and the wife made a prayer for taking the CD
on record. The same was rejected by the trial Court and the
matter has travelled to this Court.

This Court in W.P.No. 7022/2015 has granted liberty to
the wife to file fresh application along with the certificate, as
required u/S. 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act and the wife
in compliance to the order passed by this Court dated
18/3/2016 has submitted a fresh application along the
certificate, as required u/S. 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act.

The trial Court has taken the CD on record by allowing
the application. The petitioner is now aggrieved in the
matter.

This Court is of the considered opinion that once the
order passed by this Court has been complied with and that
there is a certificate, as required u/S. 65(b) of the Indian
Evidence Act, the trial Court was justified in passing the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M P No. 2078 / 2018
ABHISHEK VERMA VS. SMT. PREETI VERMA

— 2 —

impugned order. No patent illegality or jurisdictional error
has been noticed by this Court in the impugned order.

The Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph No.49 has held
as under:-

“49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles
on the exercise of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may
be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a
petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these
two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition.
The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially
different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under
Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence
under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts
inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the
orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative
statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise
of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power
of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must
be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have
been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other
decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in
subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in
order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, `within the bounds of
their authority’.

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising
jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested
in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in
exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of
tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of
justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its 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.

(i) High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any
statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India others,
reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very
doubtful.

(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115
of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999
does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court’s power under Article 227. At the same
time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not
correspondingly expand the High Court’s jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.

(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In
an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.

(l) 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.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M P No. 2078 / 2018
ABHISHEK VERMA VS. SMT. PREETI VERMA

— 3 —

(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain
efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does
not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the
minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the
functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.

(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to
be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of
public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article
226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article
227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of
judicial discipline pointed out above.

(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will
divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.”

In the light of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the apex Court,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the trial Court does
not suffers from any patent illegality nor any jurisdictional error has been
committed by the Court below. Accordingly, the admission is declined.

(S. C. SHARMA)
JUDGE
KR

Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor
Date: 2018.08.03 15:08:17 +05’30’