IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 4 of 2025 Decided on: 02.07.2025 ____________________________________________________ Ravi Sharma ……….. petitioner Versus M/s Sanya Enterprises and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Bhalla, Advocate, (through video conferencing). ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan H.P., whereby an application under Order 22 Rule CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for impleading the legal heirs of defendant No.2 in the suit i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the petition and documents appended thereto. 3. Respondent No.1 was the plaintiff before the trial Court. He had preferred a suit, wherein deceased Ram Swaroop was defendant No.2. The said suit was initially filed before the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Hon’ble High Court. Vide notification bearing No.HHCPJ/93-1, dated 17.10.2022 and 6.12.2022 on account of change of pecuniary jurisdiction, the matter was transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Nalagarh on 27.3.2023. 4. Defendant No.2 i.e. Ram Swaroop (predecessor-in- interest) of the present petitioner had died on 24.4.2020. The application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased was filed on 27.3.2023. On the said date, when the matter was received by way of transfer in the Court of Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, admittedly, Ram Swaroop i.e. defendant No.2 in the suit had died on 20.4.2020. He had died during the period of Covid when Covid restrictions were in existence. After the onset of the Covid restrictions, matter was listed by way of transfer before the Court of Additional District Judge, Nalagarh on 27.3.2023, when an application under Order 22 for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2 was filed. In the aforesaid backdrop, there exists sufficient cause/explanation for the delay in filing the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2 in the suit. 5. The suit in the case at hand filed by respondent No.1 is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 7.1.2006. On account of death of deceased defendant No.2, the right to sue as has been correctly pointed out by the trial Court survives in legal heirs of deceased defendant No.2 i.e. Ram Swaroop. 3 6. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 7. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: 4 (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.” 8. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to 5 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. 9. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 18.09.2024. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous, applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge July 02, 2025 Tarun