CMPMO/547/2026 on 12 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.547 of 2026

Reserved on: 30.09.2026

Date of decision 12.10.2026

Lekh Raj

...Petitioner

Versus

Rajiv Kumar & others

...Respondents

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.

Romesh Verma, Judge:

The instant petition arises out of the judgment, as passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 15.05.2026, whereby the appeal filed by the defendants/respondents herein was accepted and the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Kangra, District Kangra was modified, whereby the learned trial Court, after allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as filed by the petitioner, directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession, Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

and construction over the suit land/property till the final disposal of the main suit or final partition, whichever is earlier.

2. The facts, as emerge in the present petition, are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their relatives, servants, agents, assignees and representatives from changing the nature and user of the land by raising construction thereon, occupying more area than that of their share, cutting trees, fencing the best and valuable portion with angle irons and barbed wire, and committing other acts of nuisance whatsoever over the suit land situated at Mohal Tanda Kohli, Tehsil and District Kangra, as per the jamabandi for the year 2018-19, till the joint land is partitioned by metes and bounds by the competent authority.

3. As per the case asserted by the plaintiff, the land bearing Khata No. 50, Khatauni No. 62, Khasra No. 843, area measuring 00- 40-88 hectares, situated at Mohal Tanda Kohli, Tehsil and District Kangra, is entered in the joint ownership of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, as depicted in the jamabandi for the year 2018-19. It has been stated that the land bearing Khata No. 51, Khatauni No. 64, Khasra No. 846, area measuring 00-09-71 hectares, situated at Mohal Tanda Kohli, Tehsil and District Kangra, is entered in the joint ownership of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. The suit land is joint agricultural land and every co-sharer is owner in every inch of the land and no other co-sharer has any right to change the nature and user of the land till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds by the competent authority. The defendants are headstrong persons and do not bother for the law. In the first week of May 2023, they started cutting trees and changing the nature and user of the valuable and best located vacant land by raising construction thereon, occupying more area than that of their shares and collected material to carry out the aforesaid acts over the suit land to the detriment of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the defendants in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Kangra, District Kangra.

4. The suit, as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, came to be resisted by the defendants/respondents by filing comprehensive written statement wherein preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, acquiescence, limitation, valuation, jurisdiction, etc. were raised. It was specifically submitted in the written statement that the plaintiff himself has raised construction of a house consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing room, one store, one kitchen and separate bathrooms along with a verandah, i.e., total seven rooms, in the recent past over a portion of the joint suit land comprised in Khata No. 51, Khatauni No. 64, Khasra No. 846, Kitta 1, area measuring 00-09-71 hectares in suit. As per the defendants, the entire land in suit comprising Khasra Nos. 843 to 846 is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the lis. Defendants No.1 and 2 intend to raise construction of their house over a part of the land comprised in Khata

No. 50, Khatauni No. 62, Khasra No. 843, Kitta 1, area measuring 00- 40-88 hectares, which is a big chunk of land in which they are owners to the extent of an area measuring two kanals. As per the defendants, since the plaintiff has violated the principle of co-sharer-ship by raising construction himself over the joint land, he is debarred from objecting to the proposed construction of defendants No.1 and 2.

5. It has been specifically averred by the defendants that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has not disclosed the fact that he himself has raised construction of a palatial house over the joint land, comprised in Khasra No. 846, measuring 00- 09-71 hectares, in which too he was a co-sharer to the extent of half share and the said land was also joint. As per the defendants, the plaintiff has already occupied half area on the roadside front abutting the village pathway, i.e., his share in front of Khasra No.846, area measuring 00-09-71 hectares, to which he was entitled to in case of partition. The plaintiff has erected a greenhouse over there and has utilized the said parcel of land for his commercial activity. As per the defendants, the leftover portion of Khasra No.846 abutting the road to the extent of a half share belongs to the share of the defendants and they are entitled to use the same in a husband like manner. It was contended that since the plaintiff himself has raised construction, he has got no right to object to the proposed construction of defendants No.1 and 2 in Khasra No. 843, which is a big chunk of land measuring 00-40-88 hectares, where the defendants are proposing to raise construction of a house well within their share. The defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff/petitioner, along with the suit, filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of an injunction restraining the defendants, their relations, servants, agents, assignees and representatives from raising construction over the suit land, occupying more area than that of their share in this valuable portion of the joint land, cutting trees, fencing the best valuable portion with iron angles and barbed wire and committing other acts of waste in any manner whatsoever over the suit land during the pendency of the suit.

7. The said application came to be resisted by the defendants/respondents, whereby all the averments made in the application were specifically refuted and denied.

8. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Kangra, vide order dated 20.12.2024, allowed the application as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner and passed an order directing both the parties to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and construction over the suit land/property till the final disposal of the main suit or final partition, whichever is earlier.

9. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants/respondents preferred an appeal invoking the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC by filing the appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kangra on 13.01.2025. The learned first appellate Court, vide its impugned order, partly accepted the appeal filed by the defendants/respondents by allowing them to raise construction only on the existing plinth work, i.e., the foundations already laid by them. The parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession in respect of the remaining suit land till the disposal of the case or till the final partition is effected by the parties amongst themselves.

10. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. It is contended by Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Tarun Brakta, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the learned first appellate Court has not appreciated the point in controversy and has wrongly allowed the defendants to raise construction over the suit land despite the fact that the suit land is joint inter se the parties as per the revenue record. He submitted that since the suit land is joint inter se the parties, no co-sharer can be permitted to raise construction to the detriment of other co-sharer. He submitted that after accepting the present petition, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

12. On the other hand, it is contended by Mr.Bhupinder Gupta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.Janesh Gupta, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents, that the learned first appellate Court has passed a very well-reasoned order and it does not call for any interference in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the Court as he himself has raised construction over the suit land. Therefore, the principles of co-sharer-ship sought to be invoked in the present proceedings is not applicable, keeping in view the fact that the plaintiff has raised construction over the joint suit land. He submitted that this Court will not interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned first appellate Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record carefully.

14. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the defendants on the ground that the suit land is joint agricultural land inter se the plaintiff and the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that each and every co-sharer is entitled to enjoy the fruits of every inch of the land and no co-sharer has any right to change the nature of the land in question till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds by the competent authority. As per the plaintiff, since the land is joint between the parties, the defendants, who are headstrong persons, have started cutting trees, changing the nature and user of the valuable and best located vacant land by raising construction thereon,

occupying more area than that of their shares and have collected material to carry out the aforesaid acts over the suit land to the detriment of the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, the defendants are bent upon fencing the best and valuable portion with iron angles and barbed wire. Therefore, the defendants, through themselves and their agents, servants and assignees, are required to be restrained by grant of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction for demolition of such construction, if found raised over the suit land or any part of it.

15. The defendants have denied and disputed all the allegations made in the plaint. However, it has been categorically and emphatically stated that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has got no locus standi to invoke the principle of co- sharer-ship, as he himself has raised construction of a house consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing room, one store, one kitchen, and separate bathrooms along with a verandah, i.e., total seven rooms, in the recent past over a portion of the joint suit land comprised in Khata No. 51, Khatauni No. 64, Khasra No. 846, Kitta 1, area measuring 00-09-71 hectares in suit. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff himself has violated the principle of co- sharer-ship. Therefore, he is not entitled to the discretionary and equitable relief of injunction. As per the defendants, on the one hand, the plaintiff is seeking an injunction on the ground that the parties are co-sharers and the defendants should be restrained from raising construction, whereas on the other hand, he himself has raised construction of a house and a greenhouse over the joint land, which is totally illegal and therefore, on that account, the application filed by the plaintiff deserves to be rejected.

16. The learned trial Court passed the order of status quo on 20.12.2024 taking into account the presumption of truth attached to the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2018-19, whereby the parties are shown to be the joint owners of the suit land. It has been observed in the order passed by the learned trial Court that the applicant/plaintiff has denied having raised any construction over the suit land. Though the learned trial Court referred to photographs of a house, but it came to the conclusion that no material has been placed on record to show that the said construction has been raised over the suit land. The learned first appellate Court has, however, come to the conclusion that the plaintiff himself has raised construction of a house on a part of the suit land and when the defendants started/intended to raise construction, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff.

17. It has been submitted by Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, that it is a well settled principle of law that a co-sharer cannot be restrained from raising construction over joint land unless it is shown that such construction causes prejudice, diminishes the value of the property or is detrimental to the interest of other co-sharers.

18. Admittedly, in the present case, the parties are co- sharers. The plaintiff, after raising construction himself, has filed the civil suit for injuncting the defendants from raising construction when they intended to do so. Merely for the reason that the land is joint, a co-sharer cannot be injuncted. The principle seeking an injunction against a co-sharer has been well settled by this Court in Ashok Kapoor vs. Murtu Devi, 2016 (1) Shim. LC 207, wherein it has been held that a co-sharer cannot be restrained from raising construction on the joint land on the ground that he has no right to raise construction on the joint land. After an exhaustive review of the case law, it was held as under: “46. On consideration of the various judicial pronouncements and on the basis of the dominant view taken in these decisions on the rights and liabilities of the co-sharers and their rights to raise construction to the exclusion of others, the following principles can conveniently be laid down:-

(i) A co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in the common property absolutely and simply because he is a co- owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co-owner out of possession.

(ii) Mere making of construction or improvement of, in, the common property does not amount to ouster.

(iii) If by the act of the coowner in possession the value or utility of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can certainly seek an injunction to prevent the diminution of the value and utility of the property.

(iv) If the acts of the co-owner in possession are detrimental to the interest of other co- owners, a coowner out of possession can seek an injunction to prevent such an act, which is detrimental to his interest.

(v) Before an injunction is issued, the plaintiff has to establish that he would sustain, by the act he complains of some injury, which materially would affect his position or his enjoyment, or an accustomed user of the joint property would be inconvenienced or interfered with.

(vi) the question as to what relief should be granted is left to the discretion of the Court in the attending circumstances on the balance of convenience and the exercise of its discretion the Court will be guided by consideration of justice, equity and good conscience.”

19. The settled principle of law is that a co-owner is not entitled to an injunction restraining another co-owner from exceeding his rights in the common property absolutely and simply because he is a co-owner unless any act of the person in possession of the property amounts to ouster, prejudicial or adverse to the interest of the co- owner out of possession. Mere raising of construction or improvement in the common property does not amount to ouster, rather, if by any act of the co-owner in possession, the value or utility of the property is diminished, then a co-owner out of possession can certainly seek an injunction to prevent the diminution of the value and utility of the property. The acts of the co-owner in possession and a co-owner out of possession can seek an injunction to prevent such an act which is detrimental to his interest. Therefore, a co-sharer cannot be restrained from raising construction over the joint land unless it is shown that such an act would constitute prejudice and mere raising of construction does not amount to any prejudice as has been held by this Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. Sheetal & others 2021 (1) Shimla Law Cases 377.

20. As in the case in hand the plaintiff claims himself to be a joint owner but has himself raised the construction over the suit land and seeks injunction against the respondent without disclosing this fact. The injunction being an equitable relief, the person seeking an injunction must come to the court with clean hands. The well known mechanism that applies in such a matter is that person who seeks equity, must do equity. In the present case, it is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff along with other co-sharers has admittedly raised the construction on the entire joint land, therefore, now it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff that since the land is joint, the defendants should be restrained from raising construction.

21. This Court in Smt. Kalawati vs. Netar Singh AIR 2016 HP 85 has held as under: - “10. It would be evident from the decision, the mere fact that the parties are co-owners and joint owners etc. is not the sole criterion for granting or refusing the injunction, the conduct of the parties too plays an important role and in such like cases, the plaintiff conduct has to be free from blame so as to enable the court to conclude that the plaintiff has approached the Court with clean hands. But here is a case where the petitioner though claims herself to be a joint owner with the respondents after having already raised construction over the suit land seeks an injunction against the respondents without even disclosing this fact.”

22. To the similar extent, in Raj Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar 2022 (2) Shimla Law Cases 1083, this Court has held as under:- “5(a) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had already raised construction over the suit land alleged by him to be the joint land of the parties along with other co-sharers. This fact was not disclosed by the plaintiff in the manner it ought to have been stated in the plaint. The plaintiff in a round about manner averred that the defendant was trying to block the air and light of the house of the plaintiff existing over the suit land. Prima facie observation of both the learned courts below that the plaintiff had himself raised construction on the best and most valuable portion of the suit land also assumes significance. It is well settled that when a person seeks equity, he must come with clean hands. 5(b) It is admitted fact that Sh. Kartar Chand brother of the petitioner/plaintiff and one of the co-sharer had also raised construction over the suit land in the year 2010. It is not the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he had objected to the construction work done by his brother over the suit land or that the plaintiff had instituted any civil suit for restraining his brother from raising construction over the suit land. It is apparent that the petitioner/plaintiff has selectively chosen the respondent/defendant for filing the suit for injunction. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice the following references:- In (2010) 3 Shimla L.C. 205, titled Payar Singh Vs. Narayan Dass and

others, the respondents pleaded themselves to be in settled separate possession of joint land in family partition over which they were raising construction. They also took up a stand that the petitioner had also constructed his house over the land in his possession. The Court upheld the contentions of the respondents. The following observations made in the judgment are material : “12. The respondents in the written statement have specifically pleaded that parties are in separate possession under the family arrangement. The petitioner has also constructed his house on the joint land. It is not the stand of the petitioner that respondents are raising construction in an area which is more than their share. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has constructed his house on a better portion of the land. The under-construction house of the respondents is away from National Highway 21 whereas the house of the petitioner abuts N. H.21. The respondents have placed on record on the file of revision photographs construction of an under- construction house of the respondents. The photographs indicate the sufficient gap between the already constructed house of the petitioner and the under-construction house of the respondents over which even a slab has been placed. It is the case of the respondents in the written statement that they are in separate possession of the land in the family arrangement. This fact has not been denied by filing replication. The respondents are claiming possession over the suit land under family arrangement i.e. with the consent of the petitioner over which they are raising construction. The respondents have thus established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in their favour. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. In revision, the scope is limited as held in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76. The suit is for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The rights of the parties will be decided in the suit. It has not been established that the view taken by the learned District Judge does not emerge from the material on record.” xxxxxxxxx In a judgment dated 03.09.2021, delivered in CMPMO No. 555 of 2018, Ajay Kumar Vs. Ishwar Dutt, it was held that when a co-sharer himself raises a construction over the joint land when a cosharer does not object to the raising of construction over the joint land by some other co- owners, then, he cannot seek to restrain one specific co-owner from raising construction over part of the suit land, more so, when the construction being raised by that particular co-owner is over a portion, which, as per the revenue record, is in his possession along with others and when the plaintiff has not been shown in possession of this specific portion of land. Placing reliance upon various authorities, defendants in CMPMO No. 77 of 2021, titled Smt. Vyasa Devi Vs. Harish Kumar were permitted to undertake construction inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiff had also carried out construction on the joint land. Material observations made by the Court on facts are as under:- “10. The facts involved in the case have been narrated by me hereinabove and the same are not being repeated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the parties are co- sharers of the suit land but the petitioners herein are recorded to be in possession of the portion of the suit land in issue along with other cosharers. It is further not in dispute that the respondents herein are not recorded to be in possession of the suit land. It is also not in dispute that the respondents herein have also carried out construction activities by raising constructions over the joint land, as is evident from the record. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners herein, who besides being the coowners of the suit land are also recorded to be in possession thereof, cannot be estopped from raising construction pending the adjudication of the civil suit. It is settled law that injunction cannot be granted against a co-sharer and further as the respondents herein themselves have constructed their houses over the joint suit land, in these circumstances, they cannot be permitted to restrain other co-sharers, i.e. present petitioners, from doing so. The construction, which is being carried out by the petitioners, however obviously shall be subject to the final adjudication of the suit as also partition proceedings, if any, and if the area upon which construction being carried out by the present petitioners ultimately falls in the share of the plaintiffs in partition proceedings, then, of course, consequences will ensue. However, this does not mean that till the suit land is partitioned, the petitioners herein should be restrained from raising construction over the parcel of the suit land in their possession.” CMPMO No.522/2017, decided on 29.11.2018 titled Chanchal Kumar Vs. Prem Parkash & Anr. was a case where the plaintiff was one of the co-sharers over the suit land. He raised construction and filed suit for a prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents from raising construction on the vacant portion of land. The Court held that:- “…..Once, the plaintiff himself raised construction over one portion of the land, it is not understood, how he could raise an objection, if any, qua the construction on the other portion of land, by the defendants, who are admittedly co-owners of the suit land to the extent of one-half share. Needless to say, the applicant, while seeking relief of injunction is required to show that he/she has a prima facie case in his/her favour and balance of convenience also lies in his/her favour, but, in the instant case, aforesaid basic ingredients/conditions are totally missing, rather, very conduct of the plaintiff suggests that he wants to take advantage of the situation.”

23. In Payar Singh Vs. Narayan Dass and others, (2010) 3 Shimla L.C. 205, the respondents pleaded themselves to be in settled separate possession of joint land in family partition, over which they were raising construction. They also took up a stand that the petitioner had also constructed his house over the land in his possession. The Court upheld the contentions of the respondents. The observations made in the judgment are as under:- “12. The respondents in the written statement have specifically pleaded that parties are in separate possession under the family arrangement. The petitioner has also constructed his house on the joint land. It is not the stand of the petitioner that respondents are raising construction in an area which is more than their share. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner has constructed his house on a better portion of the land. The under-construction house of the respondents is away from National Highway 21 whereas the house of the petitioner abuts N. H.21. The respondents have placed on record on the file of revision photographs construction of an under construction house of the respondents. The photographs indicate the sufficient gap between the already constructed house of the petitioner and the under-construction house of the respondents over which even a slab has been placed. It is the case of the respondents in the written statement that they are in separate possession of the land in the family arrangement. This fact has not been denied by filing replication. The respondents are claiming possession over the suit land under family arrangement i.e. with the consent of the petitioner over which they are raising construction. The respondents have thus established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in their favour. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment. In revision, the scope is limited as held in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC 76. The suit is for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. The rights of the parties will be decided in the suit. It has not been established that the view taken by the learned District Judge does not emerge from the material on record.”

24. In the case at hand, the revenue record carries a presumption of truth. Though the land is shown to be joint amongst the parties, it has also been specifically pleaded by the defendants by placing photographs on record that the plaintiff himself has raised construction over the suit land. Once the plaintiff himself has raised construction, he cannot be permitted to injunct the defendants from raising construction, that too within their particular share. As has been held in Ashok Kapoor’s case (supra), mere raising of construction by a co-sharer will not infer that there is any diminution of the value of the property or that there is an ouster of the other co-sharer. The plaintiff has failed to establish that by raising construction, the value of the suit land shall be diminished or that there shall be an ouster of the plaintiff from the suit land.

25. This Court is in agreement with the findings returned by the learned first appellate Court that the defendants can be permitted to raise construction to a limited extent. Though it is contended by Mr.Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court has been passed beyond the pleadings of the parties and he would submit that it has not been specified by the defendants that they had raised the plinth or that foundations had been laid by them and as per the learned Senior Counsel, the learned first appellate Court could not have permitted the respondents to raise construction on the foundations already laid down, especially, in the absence of any pleadings. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that the plaintiff himself has raised construction over the suit land, and now, in the same breath, the principle of co-sharer- ship cannot be permitted to be raised by the plaintiff in order to injunct the defendants.

26. The defendants in their written statement have specifically stated that they intend to raise construction on Khasra No. 843, which is a big chunk of land measuring 00-40-88 hectares, over which portion they intend to raise construction very much within their share. Merely for the reason that the defendants are raising construction cannot entitle the plaintiff to an injunction until and unless the parameters laid down by this Court in Ashok Kapoor’s case (supra) are satisfied. The plaintiff has not been able to convince the Court that by raising construction by the defendants, his rights shall be prejudiced or there shall be complete ouster or diminution of the value of the suit land.

27. This Court does not see any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge; therefore, this Court will not interfere with the same. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that the scope of interference while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, and the High Court will not act as an appellate court.

28. The power under Article 227 is limited to see that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits.

29. Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follow: - “23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.

24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority.

25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566. The court observed as under:- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."

26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it.

28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits.

29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.”

30. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follows: - “14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigor of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

31. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment as passed by learned first appellate court as it has rightly determined and adjudicated the point in controversy and the same does not call for any interference.

32. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

33. Any observation made hereinabove is meant only for adjudication of the present proceedings and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main case.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge 12th October, 2026

(vt)