Judgment:
A.H. Saikia, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned Counsel to the petitioner.
2. On close perusal of the impugned order as well as upon hearing in learned counsel, for the petitioner, this Court proposes to depose of the revision petition today itself at the motion stage.
3. At the very outset, it is seen from the perusal of the cause title of the instant petition that by this application the petitioner has tried to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of any writ of mandamus/certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) narrating all the averments and allegations against the findings recorded in the impugned order dated 23.6.2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in T.S. No. 127/05 by which on consideration of the application praying for setting aside the above order and the written statement filed by the defendants/respondents was accepted though the same was not filed within the prescribed time, with the following prayer:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this application, call for the records from the learned Court below, issue a rule calling upon the respondents/defendants to show cause as to why the writ of mandamus and or any other appropriate writ/direction/order(s) should not be issued and why the impugned order dated 23.6.2006 passed in T.S. No. 127/05 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) No. 3 at Guwahati should not be set aside and quashed and the W.S. filed and brought to the notice of the learned court below on 25.8.2006 should not be rejected and/or any other order(s)/direction(s) should not be passed and upon perusal of the cause or causes shown, if any, your Lordship may be pleased to make the rule absolute.
AND
Further, pending disposal of this application Yours Lordship may be graciously pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 23.6.2006 and further proceeding of the T.S. No. 127/05 in between Shri Brahma Thakur v. Geetanjali Enterprise at present pending for disposal in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) No. 3 at Guwahati be stayed in the interest of justice.
AND
For this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
4. In the backdrop of the above factual position as regards seeking relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not find any such provision for issuance of writ of mandamus/certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which bestows upon the High Court only the power of superintendence ever all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation in which such High Court exercises jurisdiction. It is to keep the inferior courts within the bound of then authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner.
5. It would be necessary and essential to quote Article 226 of the Constitution of India which vests writ jurisdiction upon the High Court as well as article 227 of the Constitution as under:
226. Power of High Court to issue certain writs. - (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises, jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs including (writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qua warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose).
(2) The power conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions, orders, or writs to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner is made or, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under Clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the dated on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, of where the High Court is closed on the last date of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards, on which the High Court is open ; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32.
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 in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may-
(a) call for returns such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribed 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 and 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 pleaded practising therein:
Provided that any such rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under Clause (2) or Clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in the article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court of tribunals constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
6. A bare perusal of the above provision manifestly demonstrate that no power to exercise writ jurisdiction has ever been vested by Article 227 which is exclusively within the domain of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. That apart, it is settled that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court by Article 227 is a revisional jurisdiction and as such, this power does not vest in the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct the errors or mistakes committed in the decision made within the limit of jurisdiction of the courts or tribunals.
8. The power under Article 227 must be sparingly exercised and may be exercised to correct the errors of jurisdiction only and the like but not to upset pure finding of fact which falls in the domain of an appellate court or tribunal court. See Khemji Vidhu v. Premier High School reported AIR 2000 SC 3495.
9. Since the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 are separate and independent, perhaps the petitioner may have lost sight of this aspect and has acted casually in seeking relief under Article 227 to attract the writ jurisdiction.
10. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has submitted that there is a catena of decisions of the Apex Court wherein it was categorically held that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a writ of mandamus/certiorari can also be issued.
11. To bolster up his such contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:
(1) 2006 AIR SCW 1077 Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh;
(2) 2003 AIR SCW 3872 Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.
(3) 2003 AIR SCW 930 Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
12. After careful reading of the above cited cases, it manifestly transpires that the Apex Court nowhere mentioned that Article 227 of the Constitution of India provides for issuance of writ jurisdiction. Rather the broad principles and working rules with regard to issuance of writ under Article 226 and exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were categorically outlined. It was authoritatively held that when writ jurisdiction was an exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court exercise of supervisory jurisdiction was not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it was akin to revisional jurisdiction.
13. In view of the same, the submission of Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner above mentioned does not hold water and the same being untenable in law, deserves to be rejected out rightly.
14. Coming to the merit of the case, on meticulous scanning of the impugned order, it appears that though the learned Judge observed that the defendant No. 2 failed to file the written statement within time on the plea that his engaged counsel wrongly quoted the date of filing the written statement in his diary as 29.7.2005 instead of 25.7.2005 and due to such mistake on the part of the advocate, steps could not be taken by the counsel and the written statement, filed earlier, i.e., on 5.7.2005 was not tagged in the court record, the learned Judge allowed the defendant to file written statement in the interest of justice.
15. Having thoroughly analysed the impugned order and on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any merit in this revision petition to interface with the impugned order passed by the learned Judge.
16. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.