SHEO KUMAR PRASAD SINGH Vs. UPENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary issue is whether this appeal under Clause 10 of Patna High Court's Letters Patent is maintainable.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar Poddar, 2010 2 PLJR 954. In that judgment several relevant judgments of the Apex Court have been discussed including that in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, 2003 3 SCC 524for coming to the final conclusion that in appropriate cases, in spite of reduced scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code), the High Court can exercise its power of superintendence over the Civil Courts available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) We are not persuaded to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that this Court can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid purpose, i.e., for correcting jurisdictional errors in orders of Civil Courts governed by the Code. The only possible inference from the judgment noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Durga Devi is that in appropriate cases power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised by the High Court even when power of revision under Section 115 of the Code stands curtailed.