2026:HHC:23597 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 99 of 2025 Date of decision: 18.06.2026. Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Gurmukh Singh (deceased) through LRs & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. S.M. Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 (a) to 1 (c). Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of the impugned order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. dated 28.09.2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 under the provisions of Order 14 Rules 1 and 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issues, came to be dismissed. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of specific performance 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- on the basis of agreement of sale dated 12.12.2009, executed by the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 and 2 for a settled consideration of Rs. 2,85,000/- in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Kangra. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the parties had entered into an agreement to sell of the suit land and the petitioner/defendant No.3 is refusing to get the sale deed executed and under these circumstances, the suit for specific performance came to be filed by the plaintiff on 10.06.2010. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants No. 1 and 2 filed written statement on 09.09.2010. Separate written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.3, on 09.09.2010. Thereafter, the learned trial Court framed issues on 03.04.2013, 18.03.2016 and again on 21.07.2017. Thereafter, the case was fixed for adducing of the evidence by the respective parties and on closure of evidence the matter was fixed for arguments. 5. At the stage of arguments, an application was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3, on 27.09.2021 with a prayer that the following issues may be incorporated along with already framed issues:- -3- “1) Whether defendant No.3 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration and without notice as alleged? OPD 2) Whether the present suit is barred u/s 53 (A) T.P. Act, Sec. 17(1-A) of Indian Registration Act, as alleged? OPD” 6. The said application was duly contested by the plaintiff and sought dismissal of the said application. 7. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.09.2024 dismissed the application, hence the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Feeling dissatisfied, petitioner/defendant No.3 has assailed the impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.-2, Kangra is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside. He would submit that the application discloses the cause of action and, therefore, the additional issues, as proposed to be framed in the application ought to have been framed and the application should have been allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the -4- Constitution, this Court will not interfere with the well reasoned order. 10. Admittedly, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.12.2009 which came to be instituted on 10.06.2010. It is unfortunate that despite passing of more than sixteen years, the case is still pending. It has come on record that issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 03.04.2013, 18.03.2016 and 21.07.2017. Even otherwise, perusal of the issues framed by the learned trial Court, placed on record as Annexure P-4, reveals that the issues which were intended by the petitioner to be framed was already framed as issue No. 10. This Court fails to understand that how this application is maintainable in view of the fact that issue with respect to defendant No.3 being the bonafide purchaser of the suit land had already been framed by the learned trial Court. It seems that the petitioner/defendant No.3 is unnecessarily prolonging the matter. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of Constitution, by any means, is not appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decisions of the subordinate Courts or Tribunals, but is merely a power of superintendence to be used -5- 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 of India 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. 12. 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. 13. Hon’ ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follow:- “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 -6- 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 -7- 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 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 reappreciating 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.” 14. 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 -8- 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 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.” 15. The learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and came to the conclusion that the present application came to be filed at the stage of final arguments. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court. -9- 16. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 17. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observations made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant petition. (Romesh Verma) Judge 18th June, 2026. (kck)