2026:HHC:26028 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 744 of 2025 Date of decision: 30.06.2026. Kalawati (deceased) through LRs ...Petitioners. Versus Krishan Chand (deceased) through LR & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 (a). Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant petition arises out of the impugned order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. dated 03.07.2025, whereby two applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC were decided together. The application as preferred by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC came to be dismissed whereas, the application as filed by Akash Sharma and Vedant, through their next friend sh. Manohar Lal, came to be allowed. 2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the present petitioners filed a suit for specific performance dated 08.03.2013 on the ground that defendant No.1 Krishan Chand 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- had agreed to sell his total share of 1-07 biswa to the plaintiffs in equal share of land recorded in the name of defendant No.1, comprised in Khata No. 789/241, Khata Khatauni No. 213/237, 202/226, 238/227, situated in village Dangar, Pargna Ajmerpur, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in lieu of sale consideration of Rs. 8,00,000/-. It was prayed in the suit that sale deed in the name of defendants No. 2 and 3 dated 03.07.2013 be declared as wrong and illegal and be quashed and set aside. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 from interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiffs was also prayed. 3. During the pendency of the suit, Kalawati had expired and after her death, present petitioners were ordered to be brought on record. 4. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC to implead the State of H.P. as the legal representative of Karmi Devi, defendant No.20, by way of escheat on 19.02.2024. As per averments as made in the application, it has been stated that defendant No. 20, Karmi Devi d/o Sh. Bhagat Ram arrayed as proforma defendant in the present proceedings and during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1, Krishan Chand also died, leaving behind his only legal representative Smt. Karmi Devi. -3- It has been stated that defendant No. 20 also expired on 17.07.2023 and she has not left any legal heir and the property of the said deceased will go to the State of H.P. by way of escheat. Therefore, it was prayed that the State of H.P. through Collector, District Bilaspur be arrayed as legal heirs of Karmi Devi as defendant. 5. Admittedly, after filing of the said application, Akash Sharma s/o Kamlesh Chand and Vedant S/o Manohar Lal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC to implead them as the testamentary legal heirs of Karmi Devi. It was stated in the application that the applicants Akash Sharma and Vedant are legal heirs of deceased Karmi Devi by virtue of registered, legal, valid and binding Will executed during her lifetime and the same has been registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 14.06.2017. As per case of the applicants, deceased Karmi Devi neither appeared before the learned trial Court nor filed written statement. Thereafter, the present respondents moved an application with the prayer that share of Karmi in the property has been escheated to the State of H.P. and the District Collector Bilaspur is to be appointed her legal representative and be is to be substituted against her name. As per case of the petitioners false application came to the -4- knowledge of the applicants and only then they moved the instant application for their substitution in place of deceased Karmi Devi on the basis of Will dated 14.06.2017. 6. Both the parties filed reply to the respective applications as filed by the plaintiffs and Akash Sharma and Vedant. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 03.07.2025 dismissed the application as filed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners and allowed the application as filed by Akash Sharma and Vedant by arraying them as parties/LRs of Karmi Devi. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners/plaintiffs has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is wrong and erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that no Will could have been executed by deceased Karmi Devi in favour of Akash Sharma and Vedant as the mental state of mind of deceased Karmi Devi was not good. He further submits that the application which came to be filed by the respondents was not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed. Further, he submits that after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the -5- plaintiffs deserves to be allowed and the application as filed by the respondents which came to be allowed by the learned trial Court deserves to be rejected. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 1 (a) has defended the impugned order. He would submit that the learned trial Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction and well reasoned order has been passed, which does not call for any interference while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 11. In the present case, the petitioners/ plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.03.2013 against defendant No.1 late Sh. Krishan Chand. Further, declaration has been sought qua the sale deed dated 03.07.2013 which was allegedly executed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. Further, decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has been sought by the plaintiffs against the defendants. 12. The factum of execution of Will on the basis of which, the application came to be filed by Akash Sharma and Vedant cannot be determined in the present proceedings. The only question for the adjudication in the present proceedings is -6- that whether the application which was filed by Akash Sharma and Vedant deserves to be allowed or the application filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be accepted. On the basis of alleged Will, which has been executed in favour of Akash Sharma and Vedant, admittedly mutation bearing No. 1596 dated 05.01.2024 has been attested and as per the same, the property of deceased Karmi Devi has been mutated in favour of the said applicants. The presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. 13. Placing reliance upon said mutation, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that for determination of the present proceedings and for continuation of the present case, they are required to be brought on record. Whether the Will allegedly executed by Karmi Devi in favour of Akash Sharma and Vedant is whether legal or valid, is not within the domain of present proceedings and the same can be decided only by the competent Court of law. The revenue record prima facie shows that for the continuation of proceedings the applicants Akash Sharma and Vedant are legal heirs of Karmi Devi. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly arrayed the applicants to be the legal representatives of deceased Karmi Devi for the adjudication of the case in hand as is pending before the learned trial Court. The learned trial -7- Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction by deciding the application filed by the respective parties whereby application filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed and the application filed by the respondents was allowed. The Court below has decided the application strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. 14. 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 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. 15. The power under Article 227 is limited to see 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 -8- 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. 16. 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 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 -9- 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 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.” -10- 17. 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 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 rigor of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” -11- 18. The learned trial Court has rightly determined the point in controversy after taking into consideration the material placed on record. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the same. 19. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20. 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. Records, if any, be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge 30th June, 2026. (kck)