Harish Katyal v. Vidya Bhushan Sahi & ANR

$~63.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.667/2017 HARISH KATYAL ..... Petitioner Through:

Petitioner in person.

versus VIDYA BHUSHAN SAHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

% 05.07.2017 1.

The petitioner, an Advocate, has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent no.3 Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to comply with the order dated 14th February, 2017 of the Civil Judge in a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents no.1&2 under whom the petitioner is a tenant. 2.

The remedy under Article 227 cannot be invoked to execute orders of the Trial Court. Jurisdiction vested in this Court is of supervisory nature, to correct errors of Courts and Tribunals under its jurisdiction. The petition does not seek any such relief but seeks implementation of order of Trial Court and which is outside the scope of Article 227. 3.

On a reading of the paper book it appeared that DJB is not even a party to the suit. On enquiry the petitioner confirms so. If DJB is not a party to the suit, it could not possibly be made a respondent in the present petition arising from the said suit.

4.

Moreover the order dated 14th February, 2017 of which compliance is sought only directs DJB to as per Rules consider the request of the petitioner CM(M) No.667/2017

/ plaintiff for separate water connection for the premises in his tenancy. 5.

The petitioner seems to be under a misconception that the direction is for installation of a water meter and has argued so. 6.

If DJB has not considered the application, as directed vide order dated 14th February, 2017, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate remedies and a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to execute an order especially against a non-party to the suit is not maintainable. Dismissed.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 05, 2017 „pp‟..

CM(M) No.667/2017