The High Court emphasizes the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, upholding procedural orders to assist in factual determination without affecting substantive rights.
In a recent judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar, presided over by Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, upheld the trial court's decision to appoint commissioners in a contentious land dispute case involving Bashir Ahmad Akhoon and Ghulam Ahmad Malik. The case revolved around the appointment of local commissioners to investigate and report on the factual circumstances surrounding the disputed land in Kupwara.
The High Court was tasked with deciding on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the trial court's order. The petitioners, Bashir Ahmad Akhoon and another, contended that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing commissioners without sufficient justification. They argued that the order was mechanically passed and lacked the necessary reasoning to warrant local inspection, thus constituting a jurisdictional error.
However, the High Court held firm on the principles governing supervisory jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is not appellate in nature and should only be exercised in cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error. Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that procedural or interlocutory orders should not be interfered with unless they result in manifest injustice or are wholly without jurisdiction.
The judgment highlighted that the trial court acted within its powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Order XXVI Rule 9, which allows for the appointment of commissioners to elucidate matters in dispute. The High Court noted that the trial court's decision was in line with the appellate court's observations, which had previously emphasized the need for caution due to conflicting claims of possession and ownership by both parties.
The Court clarified that the appointment of commissioners was a procedural step intended to aid the trial court in ascertaining the factual position and did not affect the substantive rights of the parties involved. The High Court directed that the reports submitted by the commissioners should only serve as an aid in the proceedings, allowing both parties to file objections and present evidence.
Both petitions related to the matter were disposed of, with directions for the trial court to expedite the hearing based on the commissioners' reports. The parties have been instructed to appear before the trial court on June 5, 2026, to continue proceedings.
The judgment reinforces the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, underscoring the trial court's discretion in procedural matters aimed at preserving the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. Procedural or interlocutory orders, such as the appointment of commissioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are within the discretion of the trial court and do not warrant interference unless they result in manifest injustice.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151
