Rajendra Syal vs Mukesh Garg

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.9.2013 passed in Case No. 7A/2013 by learned District Judge, Gwalior. By the said order, the petitioner/defendant No. 2''s application preferred under Order 7 Rule 1 & 7 r/w 151 C.P.C. (Annexure P-5) is taken up. Shri Chandil submits that as per Order 7 Rule 1 & 7 C.P.C., the relief should be specifically made. In absence of specific relief, the petitioner could not take objection. He submits that if relief is properly explained by plaintiff, the present petitioner could have take objection regarding maintainability of suit for specific performance. Criticizing the order impugned, it is contended that the Court below has erred in not deciding the said application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The Court below has not rejected the application preferred under Order 1 Rule 1 & 7 (Annexure P-5). The Court below opined that at this stage the objection taken by the petitioner is premature. The Court below thought it proper to decide the application at a later stage.

The scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. Interference can be made when the order is passed by a court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety/irregularity, it suffers from palpable perversity. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. This Court is not obliged to sit as an appellate authority. Interference can be made sparingly with a view to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority. The purpose of exercising its power is not to correct factual or legal error. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . The Court below in its discretion has deferred the decision on application Annexure P-5. In the opinion of this Court, this will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The Court below has taken a plausible view. No ingredients on which interference under Article 227 can be made, are available. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed.