Mukesh Verma vs Manmohan Das & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar vide order dated 28.02.2012 passed in Misc. Case No. 115 of 2011 granted Succession Certificate

in favour of respondent no. 1 for the amount deposited in State Bank of Patiala & Axis Bank. Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13

C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 28.02.2012, however, the said application was rejected by learned Court below vide order dated 16.03.2012.

Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.03.2012.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has made a statement that, pursuant to the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by learned Court below, the

amount deposited in the aforesaid two banks was released in favour for respondent no. 1.

Learned Court below, after due application of mind, has rejected petitioner’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. This Court does not find

any reason to interfere with the said order, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Shamshad Ahmad Vs Tilak Raj Bajaj reported in 2008 (9) SCC 1, has held as under:

“32. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the

territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The

High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which

determination of a subordinate Court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own

decision for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to

keep the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law.â€​

In such view of the matter, any interference with the impugned order would be unwarranted.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.