IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.411 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.06.2026. Narender Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Lata Kumari ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.05.2025, titled Lata Kumari vs. Revatu Ram, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, H.P., whereby an application filed by the respondent/DH for seeking permission to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,85,000/- has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/DH filed a suit for possession, by way of specific performance of contract on 01.07.2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, H.P, for agreement to sell dated 10.04.2007 Ext. PW-1/C entered with the appellant/JD with respect to the land measuring 0.4.0 bighas being 4/52 share out of total land comprised In Khasra No. 2827/1731, Khata Khatauni No. 559 Min/830 Min, situated in Phati Balh, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 3. The suit was contested by appellant/JD by raising various objections. On merits, all the averments made in the plaint were refuted and denied. 4. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016 decreed the suit filed by the respondent/DH, whereby a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 10.04.2007 was passed in favour of the plaintiff/DH and against the defendant/JD on the payment of balance consideration amount i.e. Rs. 3,85,000/-. The defendant was directed to get the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of order. 5. Feeling dissatisfied the defendant/JD filed an appeal under Section 96 of CPC read with Section 21 of H.P. Courts Act before learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. on 20.3.2017. The learned First Appellate court vide its impugned order and judgment dated 08.11.2017 dismissed the appeal. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, on 06.04.2016 the DH/respondent filed an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC for the execution of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. The said execution was duly contested by the JD/petitioner by filing a reply to the same. Simultaneously, an application for seeking permission to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- as a balance sale consideration was filed by the DH/respondent before learned trial Court. 3 8. It was averred in the application that the applicant/respondent paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as an earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement and that the DH was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- to the JD. The applicant tendered the above said amount to the JD but he refused to accept the same. Therefore, the applicant wants to deposit the said amount before the Court. Therefore, he sought permission from the learned trial Court to deposit the said amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- before the said Court. 9. The application filed by the DH/respondent for the deposit of the balance sale consideration was duly contested by the JD/present petitioner. It was stated in the reply that the application, as filed, is belated, therefore, same is liable to the dismissed. `It was stated that the DH failed to make the payment of balance consideration of Rs. 3,85,000/- to the JD within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of order as such the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, H.P. vide its order dated 17.05.2025 allowed the application filed by the DH by granting permission to the respondent/DH to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- in the Court. 11. Feeling satisfied, the JD/petitioner has approached this Court against the impugned order dated 17.05.2025. 12. It is contended by Sh. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate, that since the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- was not 4 deposited by the DH well in time, therefore, the application which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court ought to have been rejected. He further submitted that the application, which has been filed for the extension of time, is beyond the directions as contained in judgment and decree dated 25.02.2016. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. He submits that the learned Executing Court has exercised the jurisdiction in conformity with the judgment and decree as passed by the Court below and therefore, no interference of any kind is required in the present proceedings. He further submits that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court will not interfere with the well reasoned order as passed by the learned Court below. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire material place on record carefully. 15. Admittedly, the respondent/DH filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant/JD, which came to be decreed on 25.02.2016 by the learned trial Court and the DH was directed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,85,000/-, and the petition/JD was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent/DH within 30 days from the date of the decree. 16. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant/JD preferred an appeal before the 5 learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, H.P. During the pendency of the appeal, the DH/respondent filed an execution petition along with an application seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration. 17. It is an admitted fact that the appeal preferred by the JD is the continuation of the suit which was decreed by the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal the DH instituted the application which is said to be time barred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court had specifically directed the defendant/JD to execute the sale deed within a period of 30 days from the date of the decree. No document or record has been placed on record in order to demonstrate that the JD contacted the DH for filing an application before the learned trial court in order to show that he intended to execute the sale deed and for that purpose the decree holder has refused to pay the balance consideration of Rs. 3,85,000/-. 18. Merely, on the bald assertion of JD/petitioner, it cannot be said that the application filed by the DH was time barred. Against the passing of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned trial Court, the appeal was still pending before the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, appeal being the continuation of the suit, it cannot be presumed or be held that the application which has been filed by the DH is time barred. The agreement was entered between the parties way back in the year 2017 and almost nineteen years have elapsed and till date, respondent/DH has not 6 yet been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree. In these circumstances, the technical plea, sought to be raised by the JD/petitioner, cannot sustain and deserves to be rejected. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate Courts or Tribunals, but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. It has been held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, much less errors of law. 20. The power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits. 21. Hon’ ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follow:- 7 “23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction. 24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. 25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 . The court observed as under:- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." 26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where 8 grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits. 29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.” 22. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follows: “14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this 9 Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 23. The Court below has rightly determined the points in controversy after taking into consideration the material placed on record and there is no error, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the same. 24. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge June 03, 2026 (Nisha)