2025:HHC:9747 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.141/2025. Date of Decision: 08th April, 2025. Gaurav Verma .....Petitioner Versus Varun Dev Chauhan ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been filed against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Court No.6, Shimla, HP in Civil Suit No.150-A of 2023. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings. 3. The application seeking recall of witness is vague. The same has been filed in a routine manner. The plea for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination is based on change of counsel. From the impugned order, it is evident that the trial Court has considered the facts of the case law applicable in their correct perspective and thereafter has passed the impugned order. 4. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:9747 (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re- weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 5. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a 3 2025:HHC:9747 grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. No case for interference on the aforesaid grounds has been made out. 6. Other than the aforesaid, the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases for re-opening the evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination in terms of law laid down in case reported as 2011 (11) SCC 275, titled K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to re- open the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross- examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for re- opening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to re- open the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications 19. We may add a word of caution. The power under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the 4 2025:HHC:9747 court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.” 7. Even examined from the point of view of Section 151 CPC, no case for interference is made out, as the application in the case at hand is not bona fide for reasons already stated. Therefore, in the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 08th April, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)