1 ( 2025:HHC:2993 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.478 of 2023 Date of Decision : 10.01.2025 Devi Chand …… Petitioner Versus M/s Chirchind Hydro Power Ltd. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) Heard counsel for the petitioner perused the impugned judgments and the petition. 2. The petitioner, in the case at hand, had filed a suit bearing No.109 of 2010, seeking permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the present respondent. The aforesaid suit so filed was decreed on 25.02.2016, as a consequence whereof respondent/defendant therein, was restrained from causing any obstruction in the smooth functioning of the water mills (Gharat) and the water channels or diverting the water of Chirchind Nalla being the main source of water for running the water mills and water channels of the present petitioner. Besides the aforesaid, the respondent had been directed to release sufficient water 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:2993 ) from the Chirchind Nalla for smooth functioning of the water mills and water channels of the petitioner. 3. Indisputably, no appeal had been preferred against the aforesaid judgment dated 25.02.2016. As per petitioner, the decree, in the case at hand, was not being adhered to by the respondent, as a consequence whereof, the present petitioner/Decree Holder was constrained to file an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, on 03.08.2022. The appeal preferred thereto was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, on 30.06.2023. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid two orders/judgments, dated 03.08.2022 and 30.06.2023, respectively, the present petition has been preferred. 5. Allowing of an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code, entails serious civil consequences, civil incarceration. Hence inquiry undertaken in pursuance cannot be summary and perfunctory. At the inquiry so conducted the Judgment Debtor cannot be condemned to civil incarceration unless and until it is held that disobedience of the judgment was deliberate and willful. 6 From perusal of the evidence led by the present petitioner/Decree Holder, it is evident that even his own witness, i.e., AW- 2 Chaman Lal has not supported the case of the petitioner. In his cross- examination, Chaman Lal has stated that after the year, 2011, he never 3 ( 2025:HHC:2993 ) visited the spot. The decree, in the case at hand, was passed on 25.02.2016. 7. Besides the aforesaid, the Decree Holder had preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code being CMA No.195/2011. The same had also been dismissed by the Court vide order dated 25.02.2016. From perusal of the impugned judgments, it is evident that both the Courts , while passing the impugned judgments have perused the record threadbare, proceeded within the prescribed parameters and thereafter after a due application of mind have arrived at a reasonable conclusion based on findings which are not perverse . In dismissing the application there is no miscarriage of justice, 8 Moreover 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: “(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 4 ( 2025:HHC:2993 ) 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 re-appreciate, 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.” 9. 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 grave dereliction of duty or 5 ( 2025:HHC:2993 ) flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. 10. 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. 11. 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) January 10, 2025 (KS) Judge