- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur dated 17th July, 2004, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'12' to the writ petition, whereby the revisional Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for adducing evidence during the pendency of the revision. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that pursuance to the amendment, which has already been allowed by the revisional Court against which the writ petition was preferred by other side, which has been decided by this Court, this Court directed the revisional Court to decide the matter itself and the revisional Court would not remand the matter to trial Court only on the ground that amendment has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the remand when the matter was re-opened by the revisional Court, he filed an application that pursuant to the amendment application having been allowed, he may be allowed to adduce evidence with regard to such matters, which has been allowed by amendment and which has been upheld by this Court. This application was numbered as 46 Ga and the objection filed was numbered as 8 Ga. The revisional Court has observed that whatever evidence relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, is already on record because the facts are not in dispute which require to be proved by evidence. In this view of the matter, the revisional Court observed that the application is filed with a view to delay the proceedings and with mala fide intention, therefore deserves to be rejected and rejected the application 46 Ga. Thus, this writ petition. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the revisional Court has erred in dismissing his application for adducing the evidence, which in fact amounts to denial of the opportunity of hearing by adducing the evidence The scope of interference by this Court in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has recently been defined by the Apex Court in the decision of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, reported in 2004 (2) JCLR 1052 (SC) : (2003) 6 SCC 675, wherein it was ruled that to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the Court or Authority on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. An error, which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging into a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. Para 38 of the judgment is reproduced below: " (38) Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusion in a nut shell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder: (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i. e. when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by over stepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self evident i. e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or completed argument or a long-drawrn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate Court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasioned. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the-pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate Court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, I do not find this to be a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, particularly when the revisional Court itself observed that facts brought by amendment are since admitted, no evidence is required for proving those facts. This writ petition therefore has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. .;