Pankaj Soni v. Smt. Neha Soni

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP (227) No.468 of 2016 Pankaj Soni, aged about 29 years, S/o Mahesh Kumar Soni, R/o Village-Kharod, Post-Kharod, Thana-Shivarinarayan, District-Janjgir-Champa (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

Smt.Neha Soni, aged about 21 years, D/o Santosh Soni, W/o Pankaj Soni, At present R/o Deepika, Thana-Deepika, Quarter No.MIG-1292 Pragati Nagar, District-Korba (CG) ---- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr.Bharat Rajput, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 28/11/2016

1. By the impugned order, the Family Court, Janjgir has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for taking CD (Compaq Disc) on record.

2. Against which, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Family Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that case has already been fixed for final arguments.

5. Applying its earlier decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram

Chander Rai1 and Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil2, the Supreme Court in Sameer Suresh Gupta through PA Holder v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal3 has held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

It has also been held that supervisory jurisdiction or certiorari jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

grave injustice should occasion.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any such illegality or perversity committed by the Family Court which would warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K Agrawal) Judge B/-