p. 1 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 (An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) Purnimasi Bhuyan …. Petitioner -versus- Sukhada Das and Ors. …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner - Mr. Vivekananda Jena, Advocate. For Opposite Parties - Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate. (for O.P. No.1) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :30.01.2026 :: Date of Judgment :19.02.2026 A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner (appellant in F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 and petitioner in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 arising out of C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Balasore) against the O.P. No.1 (respondent in FAO No.31 of 2023, O.P. in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022, defendant No.4 in the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022) praying for quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment dated p. 2 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 27.07.2023 (Annexure-5) passed in F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 by the learned District Judge, Balasore. 2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner being the plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore praying for partition of the suit properties described in Schedule ‘Kha’ of the plaint against the defendants stating in her plaint that, the suit properties are her ancestral properties, in which, she has a definite share, which is liable for partition. In that suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022, she (plaintiff) filed I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the CPC, 1908 against the defendant No.4 praying for restraining her (defendant No.4) temporarily from disturbing in the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit properties, not to enter into the suit properties, not to evict her (petitioner) from the suit properties, not to alienate the suit properties, and not to change the nature and character of the suit properties in any manner till the final disposal of the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 stating in her petition that, she (petitioner) is in peaceful possession over the suit properties as her ancestral properties, but the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4) is trying to disturb in her peaceful possession and is trying to alienate the same to p. 3 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 the third parties and she (O.P. No.1) is also trying to change the nature and character of the same. For which, the O.P. No.1 is to be injuncted temporarily till the final disposal of the suit. To which, the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4 in the suit) objected stating in her objection that, the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of her deceased husband on the basis of the allotment of the same in his favour through registered partition deed No.8007 dated 04.06.1971. Therefore, the petitioner has no interest in the suit properties. She (O.P. No.1) is in possession over the suit properties after the death of her husband as his successor. Therefore, the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner against her (O.P. No.1) cannot be allowed. The same is liable to be dismissed. 3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore dismissed to the I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 under O.39 R.1 & 2 of the petitioner (plaintiff) on dated 16.03.2023 on contest against the O.P. No.1 assigning the reasons that, “if the petitioner will be able to prove in the suit that, the suit properties are her ancestral properties, then the suit properties can be partitioned, but when the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of the husband of the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 (defendant No.4) is in possession over the same after the death of her husband as his successor, then the petitioner is not entitled for temporary injunction against the O.P. No.1” p. 4 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 4. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022, the petitioner challenged the same preferring an appeal under O.43 R.1(r) of the CPC, 1908 vide F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 being the appellant against the O.P. arraying her as respondent. 5. After hearing from both the sides, the learned District Judge, Balasore dismissed to that F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 of the petitioner on dated 27.07.2023 on contest accepting the observations made by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 against the petitioner (appellant). 6. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order of dismissal to the F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 of the petitioner passed on dated 27.07.2023 by the learned District Judge, Balasore, the appellant/plaintiff/petitioner challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being the petitioner against the respondent (defendant No.4) arraying her as O.P. No.1 praying for quashing the same along with the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 passed in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore. 7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for O.P. No.1. Page 5 of 9 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 8. When, during the course of hearing of this C.M.P., this Court suggested to the learned counsels of both the sides to cooperate for early disposal of the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 (from which this C.M.P. has arisen), then the learned counsels of both the sides fairly submitted that, their respective clients (parties in the suit) are agree for rendering all cooperations for the quick disposal of that suit. 9. This CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for making interference with the impugned judgment/order only exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Both the Courts have refused to the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner in respect of the suit properties on the ground that, the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of the husband of the O.P. No.1 and after the death of the husband of the O.P. No.1, the O.P. No.1 is in possession over the suit properties keeping the disputed matters i.e. whether the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the petitioner or not, open to be decided in the judgment of the suit. 11. It is the settled propositions of law that, “jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 cannot be exercised to correct all errors of subordinate Courts within its limitation. Page 6 of 9 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 It can be exercised where the impugned order is passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. Supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is to be exercised by the High Court only for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The High Court in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ought not to interfere with the findings arrived at by the two Courts below. Because, High Court while acting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 cannot exercise its power as an Appellate Court and substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate Court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the Record. Because, the High Court is not vested with unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of jurisdiction of the subordinate Courts. The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is not available to correct mere errors or facts of law unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceeding, such as, when the same is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and grave injustice or gross failure as occasioned whereby.” 12. The propositions of law on this aspect has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) In a case between Aakash Thakur and Ors. Vs. Kishorsingh Thakur and Ors. reported in 2024 (4) CCC 241 (Madhya Pradesh-Indore Bench) that, jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct all errors of subordinate Courts within its limitation. It can be exercised where the order is passed in grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of the fundamental principle of law and justice. Page 7 of 9 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. (Paras 11 & 12) (ii) In a case between T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and Ors reported in AIR 2011 SC 708 that, the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. In any event, the power of superintendence cannot be exercised to influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order or judgment in a particular manner. (Para 11) (iii) In a case between Kesharlal H. Pardeshi Vrs Vithal S. Patole (dead) by LRs reported in (2005) 10 SCC 249 that, High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ought not to have interfered with the findings arrived at by the two Courts below. (Para 6) (iv) In a case between Estralla Rubber Vrs Dass Estate (P) Ltd reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97 that, High Court while acting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 cannot exercise its power as an Appellate Court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate Court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate Courts or Tribunals. (v) In a case between Surya Dev Rai Vrs. Ram Chander Rai and Others reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 that, p. 8 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law, unless 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 13. 13. Here in this matter at hand, when the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner in respect of the suit properties during the pendency of the suit has already been refused by the learned Trial Court in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 as well as by the learned Appellate Court in F.A.O. No.31 of 2023 on the ground that, the suit properties have been recorded exclusively in the name of the deceased husband of the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 is in possession over the same after the death of her husband as his successor and the plea raised by the petitioner i.e. whether the suit properties are her ancestral properties is kept open to be decided in the judgment of the suit after elicitation of evidence, then, at this juncture, it cannot be said that, the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court in rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction of the petitioner is an error apparent on the face of the record and the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court had no jurisdiction for passing such order, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid p. 9 C.M.P. No.896 of 2023 decisions to this CMP at hand, the question of interfering with the impugned judgment passed in FAO No.31 of 2023 and with the impugned order passed in I.A. No.417/518 of 2022 through this CMP filed by the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, there is no merit in this CMP filed by the petitioner. The same must fail. 14. In result, this CMP filed by the petitioner is dismissed on contest. 15. Taking the submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides indicted above in Para No.8 of this judgment into account, it is felt proper to direct the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.1630/1971 of 2022 as per law within a period of 7 months hence. The parties in this writ petition through their respective learned counsels are directed for rendering their all cooperations for the final disposal of the suit within the aforesaid stipulated period. 16. As such, this CMP filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. (A.C. Behera), Judge. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 19.02.2026//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication of Orissa, Cuttack 13:32:24 Signature Not Verified