Jharkhand High Court
Vishnu Oraon – Deleted And Substituted … vs Arjun Oraon Son Of Late Soma Oraon on 29 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:20816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 949 of 2023
----
Vishnu Oraon – Deleted and substituted vide order dated 06.03.2025
(i)Bina Oraon wife of late Vishnu Oraon resident of Village Hehal,
Bagichatoli, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
(ii)Sunny Oraon
(iii)Karan Oraon
(iv)Manish Oraon
Nos.(ii) to (iv) sons of late Vishnu Oraon, resident of Shivpuri
Colony, Hinu, P.O.Hinu, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi
…… …. …Intervenor/Petitioner(s)
— Versus —
1.Arjun Oraon son of late Soma Oraon
2.Shakuntala Devi wife of late Soma Oraon
Both residents of Near Nirmala College, Paras Toli, Oraon Kocha,
P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3.Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi
4.Sunil Oraon @ Sunil Kachhap
5.Anil Oraon @ Anil Kachhap
6.Bimal Oraon @ Bimal Kachhap
Nos.4 to 6 son of Mahadeo Oraon @ Jattu
All residents of Near C.P.W.D Office, Shivpuri Colony, Hinoo, P.O.
and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
…….. Defendants/ Appellants/ Opposite Parties
—-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
—
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the O.P.No.3/ State : Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, Advocate
For the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 : Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate
Mr. Asif Khan, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Harshit Shekhar, Advocate
For the O.P.Nos.4,5&6 : Md. Abdul Wahab, Advocate
----
6/29.07.2025 Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the
O.P.No.3/State, Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
O.P.Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Abdul Wahab, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the O.P.Nos.4,5 and 6.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
for setting aside order dated 17.02.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division-I, Ranchi, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.334 of 2022,
arising out of Final Decree Case No.194 of 2020, corresponding to Original
Partition Suit No.767 of 2017.
-1- C.M.P. No. 949 of 2023
2025:JHHC:20816
3. Mr. Sandeep Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that Civil Miscellaneous petition was filed stating that the
original plaintiff namely, Soma Oraon has instituted Original Suit No.767 of 2017
against Kamal Oraon and others in the court of learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division-I, Ranchi praying therein a decree claiming partition of half share in the
suit property. He submits that in the partition suit, ex-parte decree was passed
against the defendants on 18.12.2019. He further submits that during the
pendency of the final decree proceeding, the original plaintiff, namely, Soma
Oraon died and the names of Arjun Oraon and Shakuntala Devi were
substituted in his place and, accordingly, final decree was prepared and
thereafter the petitioner-herein has filed the intervention petition before the
concerned court under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.
for his impleadment as party defendant in the said suit on the ground that the
intervenor is the son of the deceased plaintiff namely, Soma Oraon, but his
name could not be substituted in place of the original plaintiff since the
deceased and he is the legal heir and successor of Soma Oraon, and thus, he is
entitled to get share in the property and the decree has been obtained by
practicing fraud and misrepresentation. He submits that the learned court
without making any enquiry has been pleased to reject the said petition by the
impugned order and as such, the said order is not in accordance with law, and
in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Anand, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner herein has relied on
three documents to prove himself as son of late Soma Oraon and such
documents are Aadhar Card, Voter Slip and the third is Ration Card. He submits
that the learned court has interpreted all the three documents in the impugned
order and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the son of late
Soma Oraon. He further submits that if any party is aggrieved with the final
-2- C.M.P. No. 949 of 2023
2025:JHHC:20816
decree proceeding, only the appeal is the remedy and petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He further submits that wife of
late Soma Oraon namely, Shakuntala Devi, has clearly stated before the learned
court as she is the only wife of late Soma Oraon and only O.P.No.1 is born out
of the wedlock between the O.P.No.2 and late Soma Oraon. On this ground, he
submits that learned court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality
in the impugned order.
5. It is an admitted position that the suit has been decreed and thereafter
the final preparation of decree proceeding in which the petition has been filed
under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C by the petitioner herein for impleadment.
6. From the impugned order, it transpires that the learned court has
enquired in detail about the relevancy of the petition filed by the petitioner
herein under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. On the said three documents
reliance has been placed to prove that the petitioner is the son of late Soma
Oraon and the petitioner herein himself has stated before the learned court that
he has made alteration according to his wish in the Adhar Card and in view of
that the learned court has rightly found that in the residential address, the
amendment has been made in Adhar Card and it has not been clarified by the
petitioner herein how the said alteration has been made in the Adhar Card. So
far as the Ration Card is concerned, in the Ration Card only the name of the
wife and son has been disclosed and in view of that, the learned court has
rightly found that, had there been any unity between the petitioner and late
Soma Oraon and the family, the name of the O.P.No.1 and 2 should have been
there in the Ration Card and there is no illegality in that finding. Further, so far
as the Voter Slip is concerned, the learned court has found that there is
absolutely no clear reference of Town, Sub-Division, Panchayat as well as the
locality, and as such, there is no error in such finding of the learned trial court
and from the impugned order, particularly, at page no.73-at internal page no.10
-3- C.M.P. No. 949 of 2023
2025:JHHC:20816
of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned court has also called for
the documents relating to the S.A.R Case No.114, 115, 116 and 117 of 2003-
2004 and the learned court has found that 06.06.2013 in the said S.A.R. Case,
there is no signature of the Presiding Officer in the Order sheet. If the signature
is not there of the Presiding Officer, it is well settled that unless the order is
signed by the Presiding Officer/ Judge, that cannot be treated as an Order, and
in view of that the learned court has further given the cogent finding on that
issue with regard to the S.A.R Case on which reliance has been placed by the
petitioner herein.
7. In this background, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not been
able to prove before the learned court that he is the son of late Soma Oraon.
Further, against the final decree proceeding, any aggrieved person can avail the
remedy of appeal. It is further well-know that even if a person is not party in
the original proceeding that aggrieved party can take a leave of the court to file
appeal and without following the said process, the petitioner has filed a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction conferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not by any means appellate in its
nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts but is merely
a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their
authority. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Manoj Kumar reported in
(2010) 4 SSC 350 which was decided by the judgment dated March, 9, 2010
in Civil Appeal No.2226 of 2010. Paragraph nos.17 to 23 of the said judgment
are quoted below:
“17. The appellants urged that the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 227 is very limited and the High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 227, has to ensure that the courts below work within the bounds of their
authority. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division and Appeals [AIR 1958 SC 398]
settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below
function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.
18. This Court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath case [AIR 1958 SC 398] in
a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu [AIR-4- C.M.P. No. 949 of 2023
2025:JHHC:208161963 SC 1895] . The Court observed that: (AIR p. 1898, para 12)
“12. … jurisdiction conferred [under Article 227] is not by any means
appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of
subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence
to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority….”
19. This Court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter
in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim [(1983) 4 SCC 566] . The Court observed as
under: (SCC p. 570, para 7)
“7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under
Article 227 of the Constitution is limited ‘to seeing that an inferior court
or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority’, and not to correct
an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In
this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error
apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of
the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in
disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted
by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In
exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does
not act as an appellate court or tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the
evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal
purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.”
20. This Court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant
Revchand Bhojwani v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi [(1995) 6 SCC 576] . The
Court again cautioned that: (SCC pp. 579-80, para 9)
“9. … The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or
wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of
duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice,
where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.”
21. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rena Drego v. Lalchand
Soni [(1998) 3 SCC 341] again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot
interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal
while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that
the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It
cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it.
22. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat v. Vinayak N. Joshi [(1999) 1 SCC 47] this
Court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for
ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits.
23. This Court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering
with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.”
8. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that
there is no illegality in the impugned order, and if any challenge was required to
be made by the petitioner, that was before the learned appellate court and not
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and as such, this petition is,
hereby, dismissed.
9. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/ ,
A.F.R.
-5- C.M.P. No. 949 of 2023
[ad_1]
Source link