Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Mar 27: High Court today held that extraordinary power of the courts is to be exercised for the promotion of public confidence of larger public interest and not just for grant of relief in individual cases.
“Any interference by this court, at this stage, would only spin out the trial inordinately. Even otherwise, the impugned orders do not warrant interference by exercise of extraordinary or supervisory jurisdiction of this court, for neither the decision making process of the courts below suffers from any bias nor do the impugned orders cause any miscarriage of justice or otherwise suffer from any error of law”, reads the order of Justice M K Hanjura.
Justice Hanjura ordered this on a petition in which the orders of court of Munsiff, Kulgam, (Order dated 18.04.2015) allowing the application for amendment of the plaint, and the order passed by the court of the Principal District Kulgam, on an appeal preferred by respondents against the judgement and decree, passed by the court of Sub Judge, Kulgam, were challenged.
Justice Hajura after perusal of the orders of trial courts said it does not call for any interference and added, that the powers, vested in this court under Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K, are neither substitution to the revisional nor appellate power, inasmuch as the orders impugned, court said, are neither perverse nor have occasioned serious miscarriage of justice.
Underscoring the Article 227, Court said it can be invoked by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice and an improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.
“The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. 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 in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances”, reads the judgment.
Court further added that the object of the superintendence under Article 227, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain the efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of the justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute.
The basic facts, out of the instant petition, are that the respondents filed a Civil Suit in the court of the Sub Judge, Kulgam, for declaring them as the owners of the land measuring 9 Kanals and one Marla, comprising Survey No. 97, situated at Village Udoora, Kulgam.
The petitioners maintain that the District Judge has travelled beyond the limits of his jurisdiction and has, thereby, committed a serious jurisdictional error by holding that the Shariat Act of 2007 does not bar institution of a suit on the basis of custom. The petitioners have also stated that the Trial Court, while allowing the application seeking amendment, has committed the jurisdictional error as the displacement of the admission cannot be permitted by seeking amendment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel