Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for challenging the order dated 24.2.2015 passed by Additional District Judge Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2004, whereby the application 96 Ga filed by the petitioner has been allowed in part and photocopy of will dated 5.4.1983 (paper No. 99 Ga) has been taken on record but permission to prove the same has been declined on the ground that permission to prove photocopy of the will cannot be granted.
(2.) THE appellate court is invested with the power under Order 41 Rule 27 to admit or refuse to admit a document in appeal. Similarly, it is also invested with the power to refuse to permit a party to prove a document, original whereof has not been brought on record. While refusing to grant permission to prove photo copy of the will filed at the appellate stage, the appellate court has taken notice of the fact that before trial court, full opportunity was granted to the defendant IInd set (from whom the petitioner is the assignee pendente lite) to prove the will, but they failed to do so. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath and another : AIR 1954 SC 215 a constitution bench of the Supreme Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised sparingly and only in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and it is not meant to correct errors of fact or even of law. Same view was taken in a subsequent constitution bench judgement in State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela : AIR 1968 SC 1481. In a more recent judgement in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil : 2010 (8) SC 329, the Supreme Court held that though the view taken in the case of Surya Dev Rai : (2003) 6 SCC 675 regarding maintainability of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against orders of civil courts was referred to larger bench (and was not approved) but there was no divergence of opinion in relation to the principles laid down therein regarding the power of superintendence under Article 227. Their Lordships quoted with approval the following passage of the judgement from the case of Satya Dev Rai (supra): - - "38. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the 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 occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid 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." After analysing various decisions, the Supreme Court laid down in para 49, the guiding principles for exercise of supervisory power, some of which relevant for purposes of instant case are quoted below : - - "49. (c) High Courts cannot, at 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 the 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. (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'. (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. (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. (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."
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no jurisdictional error on part of the appellate court in passing the impugned order. The appeal is pending since the year 2004. The order impugned is a purely interlocutory order. The petitioner will get opportunity to challenge the order in question in case ultimately the appeal is decided against him and the appellate judgement is subjected to challenge.;