# Sixth Sense Astro Gurukul v. M/s Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1497
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-08
- **Case number:** Mattes Under Article. 227 No. 4057 of 2019
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sixth-sense-astro-gurukul-v-m-s-avantika-agro-services-pvt-ltd-ors-44598
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Code of Civil Procedure,1908- O - XXI,
R - 97 - petitioner filed an application u/o XXI
r 97 -on the basis of unregistered agreement
to sell -found to be frivolous - is rejected- as
he could not adduce any evidence-showing
himself to be in possession of the disputed
property-it does not even reflect transfer of
possession-cannot entitle the petitioner for the
benefit of order Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C.

Held: - in matters of obstructing execution of
decree in a rent case, there was sheer abuse
of the process of court resulting in thwarting
execution of a valid decree during its
subsistence.

Writ Petition dismissed (E-8)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

2 All. Sixth Sense Astro Gurukul Vs M/s Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
1497
(2019)10ILR A 1497

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Mattes Under Article. 227 No. 4057 of 2019

Sixth Sense Astro Gurukul
 ...Applicant-Petitioner
Versus
M/s Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, Sri Rahul Sahai

A. Code of Civil Procedure,1908- O - XXI,
R - 97 - petitioner filed an application u/o XXI
r 97 -on the basis of unregistered agreement
to sell -found to be frivolous - is rejected- as
he could not adduce any evidence-showing
himself to be in possession of the disputed
property-it does not even reflect transfer of
possession-cannot entitle the petitioner for the
benefit of order Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C.

Held: - in matters of obstructing execution of
decree in a rent case, there was sheer abuse
of the process of court resulting in thwarting
execution of a valid decree during its
subsistence.

Writ Petition dismissed (E-8)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad
Jaiswal, AIR 1997 SC 856

2. Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh and
others, 1998 (33) ALR 273
3. Sameer Singh and another Vs. Abdul Rab
and others, 2015 (128) RD 412

4. Tanzeem-e-Sufia Vs. Bibi Haliman, AIR 2002
SC 3083

5. Asgar and Others Vs. Mohan Varma and
others, 2019 (133) ALR 736

6. Mst. Hashmi @ Batul Vs. Ali Ahmad and
others, 2015 (109) ALR 284
7. Raghu Nath Saran Vs. VIIIth Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, 2011 (84) ALR 381
8. Jahid Khan and another Vs. Suresh Chand
Jain and others, 2014 (4) AWC 4158
9. Smt. Firdaus Begum and others Vs. Smt.
Sheela @ Susheela Devi Sharma Advocate and
others, 2013 (6) ADJ 18
10. Bool Chand (dead) thru Lrs. and others Vs.
Rabia and others, (2016) 14 SCC 270
11. Bate Krishna Damani (dead) by Lrs. Vs.
Kailash Chand Srivastava and another, 1995
supp. (1) SCC 477
12. Mani Nariman Daruwala @ Bharucha (D)
through Lrs. Vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and others,
(1991) 3 SCC 141

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicantrevisionist-petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai,
learned counsel for the plaintiff-decree
holder-respondent no.1.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case
are that House No.C.K. 1/13, Patni Tola,
Bhosale Mandir, Ward Chowk, City
Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
disputed property'), was owned by Raje
Raghuji Rao A. Bhosale son of Late Raja
Ajit Singh A. Bhosale, Mahal Nagpur
1498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Maharashtra). The petitioner claims that
one Vishwanath Pandey (Power of
Attorney of the aforesaid Raje Raghuji A.
Bhosale)
executed
an
unregistered
agreement to sell dated 15.05.2013 in
favour of the petitioner to sell the
aforesaid disputed property. However, a
registered lease deed dated 25.06.2014
was executed by the aforesaid Raje
Raghuji Bhosale through his power of
attorney Vishwanath Pandey in favour of
the plaintiff-decree holder-respondent no.
1 on accepting a premium of Rs.
24,00,000/- and monthly rent of Rs. 200/-.
Lease rent Rs. 6,00,000/- was received in
advance to be adjustable towards the
monthly rent. As per clause 5 of the lease
deed, the aforesaid owner of the disputed
building/lessor put in actual physical
possession to the plaintiff-decree holderrespondent no. 1. Thereafter, the plaintiffdecree holder-respondent no. 1 filed SCC
Suit No. 18 of 2015 for eviction of the
defendant-judgment
debtor/respondent
nos. 2 and 3.

3. In the aforesaid SCC Suit No. 18
of 2015, petitioner herein filed an
impleadment application under Order I
Rule 10 C.P.C. on the ground that he has
an unregistered agreement to sell in his
favour with respect to the disputed
property, and therefore, he is a necessary
party. This application being paper no.
22-Ga was rejected by the Judge Small
Cause Court by order dated 23.12.2015.
This order has attained finality. In the
meantime, the petitioner herein also filed
Suit No. 1190 of 2015 seeking various
reliefs
including
injunction
and
declaratory
relief.
The
plaint
was
rejected by the Civil Judge (S.D.),
Varanasi by order dated 18.02.2016 due
to non-payment of appropriate court fees
and
not
amending
the
valuation.
Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed First
Appeal no. 170 of 2016 praying to set
aside the aforesaid judgment and order of
the Civil Judge (S.D.), Varanasi, dated
18.02.2016. The first appeal was disposed
of by a Division Bench of this Court by
order dated 20.04.2016 and the judgment
and order dated 18.02.2016 passed by
Civil Judge (S.D.), Varanasi, rejecting the
plaint, was upheld. But liberty was
granted to the petitioner herein to file a
fresh suit. This Court specifically asked
learned counsel for the petitioner
herein as to whether any suit has been
filed pursuant to the liberty granted by
the Division Bench? In reply, learned
counsel for the petitioner herein stated
that no suit has been filed by the
petitioner.

4. The aforesaid SCC Suit No. 18 of
2015 (M/s. Avantika Agro Services Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Chandrabhan and Padma Devi)
filed by the respondent no. 1 for eviction
of tenants (respondent nos. 2 and 3) was
decreed by judgment dated 19.05.2016.
The defendant-respondent nos. 2 and 3
herein, were directed to be evicted.
Therefore, the plaintiff-decree holderrespondent no. 1 filed Execution Case
No. 8 of 2016. In the aforesaid
execution case, the petitioner herein
filed an application under Order XXI
Rule 97 C.P.C. claiming himself to be in
possession of the disputed property on
the basis of the aforesaid unregistered
agreement to sell dated 15.05.2013. The
aforesaid application being paper no. 4Ga was registered as Misc. Case No. 96 of
2018. It was rejected by the Judge Small
Cause Court, Varanasi by the impugned
order dated 10.12.2018 on the ground that
no evidence could be produced by the
petitioner to show that he is in possession
of the disputed room of the disputed
2 All. Sixth Sense Astro Gurukul Vs M/s Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
1499
property on the basis of unregistered
agreement to sell and that unregistered
agreement to sell is not even admissible in
evidence in view of Section 17 of the
Registration Act. Aggrieved with this
order, the petitioner herein filed Civil
Revision No. 02 of 2019 (Sixth Sense
Astro Gurukulam (registered trust) Vs.
M/s. Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.
and 2 others) which has been dismissed
by
the
impugned
judgment
dated
15.02.2019 passed by the District Judge,
Varanasi. In paragraphs 5 and 9 of the
impugned judgment, the revisional court
observed/held as under:-

"5. Revisionist claims his possession
over the premises in question on the basis
of an agreement to sale alleged to be
executed by the real owner in his favour
on 15.05.2013. Copy of this agreement to
sale has been filed by the revisionist in
lower Court as paper no. 11C. It is an
unregistered agreement to sale and value
of the subject matter in this agreement to
sale is mentioned at Rs. 2.60 crores. The
revisionist has not filed any document of
title or the sale-deed executed in his
favour by the real owner. Perusal of
agreement to sale, paper no. 11C, further
reveals that in this paper too, it has not
been mentioned that possession over the
premises in question was ever transferred
to the revisionist. In his application filed
under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 151
of C.P.C. in the lower Court revisionist
has also stated that possession was
delivered by the real owner to the
revisionist
after
execution
of
the
agreement to sale dated 15.05.2013. In
para 5 of his application it is mentioned
that revisionist is in possession over the
premises in question since 16.05.2013.
Above facts also make it clear that
revisionist was not given possession at the
time of execution of said agreement to
sale. In lower Court no evidence showing
his possession over the premises in
question has been adduced by the
revisionist. It is not disputed that a decree
is in favour of M/s. Avantika Agro
Services Pvt. Ltd. with respect to premises
in question and by the said decree M/s.
Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd had been
given possession over the premises in
question. Possession of a third party is the
main point for consideration in an
application filed under Order 21 Rule 97
of C.P.C.

9. Since the executing Court has no
right to adjudicate upon validity or
legality of the decree, objection raised by
the revisionist with regard to non
compliance of conditions set forth by the
Court while giving permission to sale the
disputed property to the real owner can
not be considered in a proceeding before
the executing Court. A third party can
only resist the execution of the decree on
the basis of his possession over the
premises in question under Order 21 Rule
97 of C.P.C. Revisionist has failed to
establish his possession over the premises
in question. By mere giving a statement
on affidavit it can not be assumed that
revisionist was in possession of the
disputed property. It is also not necessary
to make a detailed enquiry or to take
evidence of the parties while deciding an
application under Order 21 Rule 1997 of
C.P.C. Therefore, impugned order can
not be assailed on these points too. The
learned lower Court has observed in the
impugned
order
that
the
applicant
revisionist had failed to establish his
possession over the disputed premises.
This observation of the learned Lower
Court is not against the record of the case
and it can not be termed as perverse.
There is no illegality in the impugned
1500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order and this S.C.C. Revision is
accordingly not liable to be allowed."

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid
order of the Judge Small Cause Court
dated 10.12.2018 rejecting the 4-C
application under Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C. and judgment of the revisional
court dated 15.2.2019 in Civil Revision
No.02 of 2019 passed by the District
Judge, Varanasi, the petitioner herein has
filed the present petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions:-

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits as under:-

(i) The petitioner is in possession of
the disputed room of the disputed
property pursuant to agreement to sell
dated 15.5.2013.

(ii) The application of the petitioner
under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. could be
decided by the court below only after
taking evidences and after recording a
finding with regard to right, title and
interest of the parties in the disputed
property. Since, this has not been done
therefore, the impugned orders and
judgments are liable to be set aside.

7. In support of his submissions, he
referred to paragraphs 21, 22, 24 and 26
of the petition which are reproduced
below:

"21.
That
accommodation
in
question situate in House No. 1/13, Patni
tola, Varanasi, is owned by Raje Raghuji
Rao Bhosale who file Misc. Case No. 17
of 2010 Raje Raghuji Rao Bhosale Vs.
collector,
Varanasi,
for
grant
of
permission for sale of said house and
Special
Judge
(Anti
Corruption),
Varanasi granted permission for sale of
said house, vide order dated 31.01.2014
subject to conditions that purchaser must
be follower of Vaishno Smpraday who
shall maintain the temple existing in the
premises, perform Rag-Bhag and Poojapath; further the sale consideration must
be according to market value, must be
deposited in treasury and maintenance of
temple and premises be done out of
interest received therefrom but decreeholder / respondent no.1 got a Lease
Deed dated 25/26.06.2014 executed in its
favour in lieu of a premium of Rs.
24,00,000.00 only which was totally in
contravention of the aforesaid order
granting permission dated 31.01.2014, as
such alleged Lease Deed is nullity, void
ab-initio and on that basis decree-holder
is neither owner nor can be Landlord of
the aforesaid premises.

22. That any act done or any deed
executed not in conformity of the order of
the court is against public policy and the
very basis of claim of respondent no. 1, is
the lease deed got executed by it against
order dated 31.01.2014 in Misc. Case no.
217 of 2010 but both the courts below
kept mum and advert to record any
finding which goes to the root of the
matter, for the reasons best known to the
courts below.

24. That in proceeding under Order
21 Rule 97 C.P.C., it was incumbent upon
the Executing Court to adjudicate right,
title and interest of parties in respect of
property in suit, but failed to do so and
similarly revisional court also dismissed
revision
without
adverting
itself
to
ingredients of Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.

26. That both the courts below failed
to consider that when an application has
been made under Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C., court is enjoined to adjudicate
2 All. Sixth Sense Astro Gurukul Vs M/s Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
1501
upon right/title and interest claimed in the
property arising between the parties to a
proceeding or between a decree holder or
the person claiming independent right,
titile, interest or possession in that behalf
and
such
determination
shall
be
conclusive and not a matter to be agitated
by a separate suit."

8. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs.
Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, AIR 1997 SC
856, Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh
and others, 1998 (33) ALR 273, Sameer
Singh and another Vs. Abdul Rab and
others, 2015 (128) RD 412, Tanzeem-eSufia Vs. Bibi Haliman, AIR 2002 SC
3083 and Asgar and Others Vs. Mohan
Varma and others, 2019 (133) ALR 736
and judgments of this Court in Mst.
Hashmi @ Batul Vs. Ali Ahmad and
others, 2015 (109) ALR 284, Raghu
Nath Saran Vs. VIIIth Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, 2011 (84) ALR 381,
Jahid Khan and another Vs. Suresh
Chand Jain and others, 2014 (4) AWC
4158 and Smt. Firdaus Begum and
others Vs. Smt. Sheela @ Susheela Devi
Sharma Advocate and others, 2013 (6)
ADJ 18.

9. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel
for the plaintiff-decree holder-respondent
no.1 submits as under:-

(i) This petition has been filed without
bringing on record certain relevant orders
and judgments including the order dated
23.12.2015 in SCC Case No.18 of 2015
whereby the application being paper
no.22-Ga filed by the petitioner under
Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., was rejected by
the Judge Small Cause Court and the
order has attained finality. A copy of the
order dated 18.2.2016 passed in Suit
No.1190 of 2015 rejecting the plaint of
the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11
C.P.C. has also not been filed alongwith
this petition. Paragraph 11 of the
objection (copy of which filed as
Annexure 10) to the application of the
petitioner under Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C. indicates that the petitioner herein
filed three suits being O.S. No.1188 of
2015, 1189 of 2015 and 1190 of 2015.
The disclosure has been made in the
present petition only with regard to O.S.
No.1188 of 2015 and the dismissal of
First Appeal No.170 of 2016 arising from
O.S. No.1190 of 2015. Thus, material
facts have been concealed by the
petitioner.

(ii) The entire case of the petitioner
is based on the alleged unregistered
agreement to sell dated 15.5.2013 which
was neither admissible in evidence nor it
establishes possession of the petitioner
over the disputed room of the disputed
property. No evidence could be produced
by the petitioner to indicate his possession
over the disputed room. The petitioner's
case is not a case of part performance of
contract under Section 53-A of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

(iii) The impleadment application of
the petitioner in SCC Suit No.18 of 2015
was rejected by the Judge Small Cause
Court by order dated 23.12.2015 which
has attained finality. The plaint of the suit
of the petitioner being O.S. No.1190 of
2015 for declaration and injunction etc.,
was rejected and despite grant of liberty
in first appeal by this Court, no suit has
been filed. Therefore, that matter has also
attained finality.

(iv) After the aforesaid SCC Suit
No.18 of 2015 was decreed by judgment
dated 19.5.2016, the tenant (judgment
1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
debtor/respondent nos.2 and 3) filed a
recall application under Order IX Rule 13
C.P.C. which was rejected by the court
below
by
order
dated
20.4.2018.
Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an
application under Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C. on 24.5.2018 which is apparently
in
collusion
with
the
judgment
debtor/tenant.

Discussion and Findings:-

10. I have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties.

Concealment of facts :-

11. Undisputedly, the petitioner is
neither a tenant nor owner of the disputed
property. He had claimed his right on the
basis
of
an
alleged
unregistered
agreement to sell dated 15.05.2013. There
is nothing on record to show that he has
filed any suit for specific performance and
got any favorable order. The disputed
property was leased out by its true owner
to the plaintiff-decree holder/respondent
no. 1 by a registered lease deed dated
25.06.2014. The plaintiff-landlord-decree
holder/respondent no. 1 had filed SCC
Suit No. 18 of 2015 for eviction of the
defendant-tenant-judgment
debtor/respondent nos. 2 and 3 in which
the petitioner herein filed an impleadment
application (paper no. 22 Ga) under Order
I Rule 10 C.P.C. which was rejected by
the Judge Small Cause Court by order
dated 23.12.2015. This order has attained
finality. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
O.S. No. 1190 of 2015 seeking various
reliefs
including
injunction
and
declaratory relief. The plaint was rejected
by Civil Judge (S.D.), Varanasi by order
dated 18.02.2016 and the First Appeal
No. 170 of 2016 filed against this order,
was disposed of by a Division Bench of
this Court by order dated 20.04.2016
whereby the order of the Civil Judge
(S.D.), Varanasi dated 18.02.2016 was
upheld but a liberty was granted to the
petitioner to file a fresh suit. No suit has
been filed by the petitioner. These
relevant facts have been concealed by the
petitioner in the present petition.

Applicability of Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C. :-

12. After the SCC Suit No. 18 of
2015 filed by the plaintiff-landlord-decree
holder/respondent no. 1, was decreed by
the court below by judgment dated
19.05.2016
against
defendanttenant/respondent nos. 2 and 3, the
plaintiff-landlord/decree
holder
filed
Execution Case No. 08 of 2016. In the
aforesaid execution case, the petitioner
had filed an application being paper no. 4
Ga (registered as Misc. Case No. 96 of
2018) under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C.
which was rejected by the impugned order
dated 10.12.2018 against which he filed
Civil Revision No. 02 of 2019 which was
dismissed by the impugned judgment
dated 15.02.2019. The application under
Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. was filed by
the petitioner after the plaintiff-landlorddecree holder/respondent no. 1 filed
Execution Case No. 8 of 2016 against the
defendant-tenant/respondent nos. 2 and 3
for execution of the judgment and decree
dated 19.05.2016. Despite order dated
20.04.2016 in First Appeal No. 170 of
2016 passed by a Division Bench of this
Court giving liberty to the petitioner to
file a fresh suit, no suit was filed by the
petitioner. Thus, apparently, filing of the
application
being
paper no. 4
Ga
(registered as Misc. Case No. 96 of 2018)
2 All. Sixth Sense Astro Gurukul Vs M/s Avantika Agro Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
1503
is in collusion with the defendanttenant/respondent nos. 2 and 3 to delay
the execution of the decree.

13. A finding of fact has been
recorded in paragraphs 5 and 9 of the
impugned judgment dated 15.02.2019 that
neither before the execution court nor
before the appellate court, the petitioner
could adduce any evidence to show his
possession over the disputed property.
The alleged unregistered agreement to sell
does not provide that possession of the
disputed property was transferred to the
petitioner. Admittedly, the tenants have
been evicted and possession of the
disputed property has been given to the
decree-holder/respondent no. 1.

14. It is settled law that under Order
XXI Rule 97 C.P.C., a third party can resist
the execution of a decree on the basis of his
possession over the suit property. The courts
below have found that the petitioner has
completely failed to establish his possession
over the disputed property. His suit for
declaration and injunction being O.S. No.
1190 of 2015 was dismissed by the Civil
Judge (S.D.), Varanasi by order dated
18.02.2016 and the said judgment has attained
finality on dismissal of the petitioner's First
Appeal No. 170 of 2016 by judgment dated
18.02.2016. Thus, there is no evidence that the
petitioner has either any right or title to the
disputed property or that possession of the
disputed property was given to the petitioner
by the erstwhile owner. Therefore, both the
impugned orders passed by the courts below
rejecting the application 4-C of the petitioner
under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. and
dismissing the revision, do not suffer from any
error of law.

15. In Bool Chand (dead) thru Lrs.
and others Vs. Rabia and others, (2016)
14 SCC 270 (paragraph 12), Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under :-

"12. While a genuine petition for
execution of a decree can certainly be
considered, the court cannot be oblivious
of frivolous objections being filed after a
decree is passed in long-drawn contested
proceedings. Attempt to deprive the
decree-holder of benefit of such decree
should be discouraged by the court where
such objection is raised. The impugned
order is thus, clearly erroneous and
unsustainable and not a result of sound
judicial approach."

16. There cannot be any quarrel that
an application under Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C. may be filed even by a stranger
and executing court has power to
adjudicate upon all questions relating to
right, title and interest in property arising
between the parties including the stranger.
But where the application (objection) is
frivolous then it deserves to be rejected.
In the present set of facts, the petitioner
has completely failed to adduce any
evidence that on the basis of alleged
unregistered
agreement
to
sell,
the
possession of the disputed property was
transferred to him or that the alleged
unregistered agreement to sell contains
any clause of transfer of possession. Both
the courts below have found that the
petitioner could not adduce any evidence
that he is in possession of the disputed
property. On the contrary in execution of
the
decree,
the
defendant-tenant/
respondent nos. 2 and 3 have been evicted
and the decree holder/respondent no. 1
has been given possession of the disputed
property/tenanted property. This court
asked the learned counsel for the
petitioner to show even prima facie from
any evidence that the petitioner is in
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possession of the disputed property but
the learned counsel for the petitioner has
failed even to point out any such evidence
or document. The only basis of the claim
of the petitioner or objection under Order
XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. is the alleged
unregistered agreement to sell allegedly
executed by the power of attorney holder
of
the
erstwhile
owner.
Thus,
an
agreement which does not even reflect
transfer of possession of the disputed
property, cannot entitle the petitioner for
the benefit of order Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C.

17. In Bate Krishna Damani
(dead) by Lrs. Vs. Kailash Chand
Srivastava and another, 1995 supp. (1)
SCC 477 (para 4 and 5), in matters of
obstructing execution of decree in a rent
case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed on
the facts of that case that there was sheer
abuse of the process of court resulting in
thwarting execution of a valid decree
during its subsistence. In Mani Nariman
Daruwala @ Bharucha (D) through
Lrs. Vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and others,
(1991) 3 SCC 141 (paragraph 18),
Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the law
with regard to scope of interference under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and held as under :-

"18. Was the High Court justified in
taking this view and in upsetting the
finding recorded by the Appellate Bench?
While considering this question it has to
be borne in mind that the High Court was
exercising its jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. In the
exercise of this jurisdiction the High
Court can set aside or ignore the findings
of fact of an inferior court or tribunal if
there was no evidence to justify such a
conclusion and if no reasonable person
could
possibly
have
come
to
the
conclusion which the court or tribunal
who (sic) has come or in other words it is
a finding which was perverse in law.
Except to the limited extent indicated
above the High Court has no jurisdiction
to interfere with the findings of fact (See:
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata
S. Guram). Applying these test we are
unable to persuade ourselves to hold that
the findings recorded by the Appellate
Bench suffer from such an infirmity so as
to justify interference with the said finding
under Article 227 of the Constitution."

18. The judgments relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are
clearly distinguishable on facts of the
present case and do not support the case
of the petitioner.

19. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any merit in this petition.
Consequently, the petition fails and is
hereby dismissed with cost.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 1504

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Mattes Under Article 227 No. 5594 of 2019

Jai Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
Kumari Anjali & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Paras Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----