2025:HHC:21622 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.296 of 2025 Decided on: 03.07.2025. __________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Dwarpal & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellant: Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge in CMPMO No.515 of 2024, titled Surinder Singh v. Dwarpal & others, whereby the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed and the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Commission was subject matter of consideration. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the State Commission 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:21622 - 2 - against the order of the District Consumer Commission, and, therefore, the Constitutional Court ordinarily should not exercise its supervisory powers in respect of the orders passed by the Courts or Tribunals and declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Upon filing of the present appeal, the Registry raised an objection that the same is not maintainable. Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that his valuable rights are being taken away and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, while deciding the application filed by the appellant for impleading the Administrator’s name Umesh Kumar, and for deletion of the appellant’s name, had only partly allowed the application. As a result, the appellant remains aggrieved by the said order, which, according to him, has gravely affected his rights. 3. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and another, (1981) 4 SCC 8, to contend that the impugned order causes grave injustice as the appellant is no longer the President of 2025:HHC:21622 - 3 - the society in question, which has since been wound up, and that an Administrator has been appointed to manage the affairs of the Deoli Agriculture Cooperative Society. 4. In the present case, we have noticed that apparently there was a complaint, which was allowed on 19.10.2021, in which a sum of Rs.9,65,424/- along with interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the amount, if already not paid, along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/- towards litigation costs had been awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Una. The appeal filed by the Society through the present appellant being the President before the State Commission was dismissed on account of non-deposit of 50% of the Award amount as per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant then filed execution proceedings, in which order was passed whereby the petitioner apparently sought to wriggle out of the said execution proceedings by filing the said application. 5. The District Forum passed the order which was challenged not by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but by filing the 2025:HHC:21622 - 4 - petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the settled principle of law, an intra-Court appeal against an order passed under Article 227 is not maintainable. 6. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji versus State of Gujarat and Others, (2015) 9 SCC 1, wherein the issue in question was whether an appeal would be maintainable against an order passed by a Civil Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held that it is the obligation of the Division Bench to discern and decide whether the order passed by the learned Single judge was in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution or both and resultantly, came to the conclusion that when exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has been done and in the light of pronouncement in Radhey Shyam versus Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, by a three Judge Bench, a Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable, and the remedy would lie before the Apex Court. 2025:HHC:21622 - 5 - 7. A similar view was taken by the three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Ram Kishan Fauji versus State of Haryana and Others, (2017) 5 SCC 533, which would go on to show that any order challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution, no intra-Court appeal would lie. 8. Even the judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellant, in Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), would go on to show that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a “judgment” and any order passed by the Trial Court while deciding question of admissibility or relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as judgment. Therefore, it was held that the rights of the parties may not be affected and it is purely discretionary and interlocutory orders, which causes grave injustice to the defendant, can only be challenged. 9. A similar view has also been taken by another three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Nandini J. Shah and Others, (2018) 15 SCC 356. It also held to the same effect while placing reliance upon the judgment in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji case (supra), that there is 2025:HHC:21622 - 6 - difference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and writ cannot be issued against an order passed by a Civil Court and, therefore, no Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable, in such cases. The effect and nature of the impugned order are crucial in determining maintainability, and in that case as well, the Supreme Court held that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. 10. A similar observation was made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No.122 of 2008, titled Mehar Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 24.03.2021, wherein the impugned orders had been challenged by invoking both Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was held that power under Article 227 is intended to be used for the purpose of keeping Subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors and no appeal would lie against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution and if the judgment under appeal falls squarely within 2025:HHC:21622 - 7 - the four corners of Article 227, it goes without saying that intra-Court appeal from such judgment would not be maintainable. 11. It is a matter of record itself that the petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the appellant having chosen to file such a petition now cannot pretend to wriggle out. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no injustice would be caused to the present appellant also in the facts and circumstances since the executing Court had partly allowed the application and impleaded the administrator for proper appreciation of the controversy. Therefore, merely because the appellant has not been deleted from the array of parties, does not give a rise to a cause of action to challenge the said orders since the complainant is in the pursuit of the fruits of his litigation which had been granted to him by the District Forum and therefore, it would be for the executing Court to see while passing the orders as to who is liable to pay the amount. 13. In such circumstances, we do not find that present petition is maintainable. Resultantly, if the said 2025:HHC:21622 - 8 - exercise is permitted, it would amount to every order being passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution or while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to be challenged by way of intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal, which has been held to be not permissible. 14. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 03, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]