2025:HHC:6240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.5/2022. Date of Decision: 13th March, 2025. Savitri Devi & Ors. .....Petitioners Versus Prakash Chand ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, HP whereby an application preferred under Order VIII Rule 3(A) read with Section 151 CPC for producing and tendering in evidence an original spot map dated 20.08.2021 filed by the present petitioners i.e. defendants before the trial Court has been rejected. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings appended along with the present petition. 3. Initially the suit had been filed by the present respondent before the trial Court in December 2013. Written statement thereto had been filed on 21.05.2014. Vide order dated 11.03.2016, respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court was permitted to amend the plaint filed before the trial Court. The amended written statement filed by the present petitioners i.e. defendant before the trial Court has been placed on record. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:6240 4. From a perusal of the written statement so filed, it is evident that no mention in the same has been made of the spot map now sought to be produced and tendered in evidence. 5. A bare perusal of Order VIII Rule 1A reflects that when a defendant basis his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession, then in that event the defendant has to enter such a document in a list to be filed along with the written statement and is also required to file the said document relied upon along with the written statement. 6. From a perusal of the amended written statement filed and placed on record, it is evident that document sought to be placed on record has nowhere been relied in the said amended written statement. In terms of Order VIII Rule 1A(3), a document which is ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule but is not produced, then the same cannot be received in evidence without the leave of the Court. 7. Since, in the case at hand, the document now sought to be placed on record was never relied upon, therefore, even in terms of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) the trial Court could not have exercised power under the said provision to permit placing on record of the same. In fact, the learned trial Court while rejecting the application in the case at hand has very correctly observed that there can be no evidence beyond pleadings. 8. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of 3 2025:HHC:6240 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 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.” 9. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to 4 2025:HHC:6240 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 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. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.03.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 13th March, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)