Power Of Superintendence Under Article 227 Not Confined To Administrative Superintendence Only; Includes Power Of Judicial Review Too: Andhra Pradesh HC
The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227 of the Constitution, is not confined to administrative superintendence only but includes the power of judicial review.
The Court was dealing with a civil revision petitions filed against a Family Court order in a money recovery suit.
The single-bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti observed, "Article 227 deals with the power of superintendence by the High Court over all subordinate Courts and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article 227, is not confined to administrative superintendence only but includes the power of judicial review. This Court has to see that the Courts shall not exceed the power that is conferred on it or exercise power based on extraneous material to pass any order and to keep the subordinate courts within its bounds of jurisdiction."
The petitioners were represented by Advocate T.S. Anand while the respondents were represented by Government Pleader, Senior Advocate Y Srinivasa Murthy and Advocate MV Suresh.
The facts of the case is that the original suit was filed by the Respondent no. 1 against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 8 for recovery of amount on the strength of the promissory note said to have been executed by late Pasala Surya Chandra Rao. At the stage of defendant’s evidence an application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send promissory note along with the admitted signatures for comparison and verification of the Government Handwriting expert. Also, filed an application under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to issue summons to ‘the Registrar, Visakapatnam Registrar Office, Visakapatnam’ for production of Will. However, the trial court dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present two revision petitions.
Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that in the written statement, it was specifically contended that the signature of late Surya Chandra Rao on Ex.A1,pronote is forged one and therefore expert examination is necessary.
Counsel for Respondents on the other hand submitted that in the cross-examination of PWs 1 and 2, the execution of the pro note was admitted and the opinion of an expert is corroborative. He submitted that there is a long gap of 15 years from the date of execution of the alleged Will and the impugned orders are illegal.
The legal proposition before the Court to decide was whether the Court committed any irregularity, warranting interference of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
The Court observed that the opinion of the expert is not conclusive and it should rarely be given precedence. The Court noted that the trial Court, while dismissing the applications, in fact, observed that while making suggestions to PWs1 and 2, the defendants admitted the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by late Surya Chandra Rao. While highlighting the scope of inherent power of the high court under Article 227, the court stated that it finds no reason to interfere with the Trial Court order.
"In the cases at hand, this Court doesn’t find any perversity in the order or capricious exercise of power by the Trial Court brook interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court considered all the aspects and dismissed the applications. This Court does not find any merits in the revisions. Hence, these revisions are liable to be dismissed," the court observed.
The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs Ravi Surya Prakash and Others
Appearances:
Petitioners- Advocate T.S. Anand
Respondents- Government Pleader, Senior Advocate Y Srinivasa Murthy and Advocate MV Suresh.
Click here to read/ download order:
