- (1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 18th February, 2012, whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is revealed that the petitioners filed an application beseeching to implead them as party defendants in the suit. The learned trial court did not find the petitioners to be the necessary or proper party who could have been impleaded as party defendants for the just decision of the suit, hence, the application being bereft of any merit was dismissed. The learned trial court also observed that the petitioners were the strangers to suit and the contract had been entered into between P.D. Verghese and Laxman and there was not even a whisper of the name of Norti Devi, who happened to be the mother of the petitioners. The learned trial court is found to have discussed all the facts and circumstances of the case, adlongum, and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners were strangers to the suit and they were neither necessary nor the proper party. 2. It is relevant to note that the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution is very limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in plethora of cases that the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked by the High Court only when the impugned order is found to be perverse, contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. It has also been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction should escape from interfering with the impugned orders of the courts below and such power should be exercised sparingly and not in routine. It is also settled law that the High Court should be very slow in upsetting the pure finding of facts.
(3.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Versus Rajendra Shankar Patil, 2010 8 SCC 329, their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court have held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a reserved and exceptional power for judicial intervention to be exercised not merely for the grant of relief in any even of the case, but only to be directed for the promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice. It has been held that the power is unfettered, but subject to high degree of judicial discipline and interference is to be kept at the minimum.;