Full Text
14th October, 2014 AJIT KAR ......Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Through:
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.16981/2014 (condonation of delay)
JUDGMENT
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of three days in filing the petition is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.16982/2014 (exemption)
2. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. 2014:DHC:5333 C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.924/2014
3. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary powers and discretionary powers. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are meant to be exercised when a grave injustice is caused by an order passed by the court below. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not meant to be invoked and exercised where challenge is only to imposition of costs of Rs.2,000/-.
4. The present petition is filed by the plaintiff in the suit challenging various orders, and which culminated in the order dated 15.5.2015 by which the trial court has refused to recall the order dated 4.3.2014 by which costs of Rs.2,000/- were imposed upon the petitioner/plaintiff on account of seeking an adjournment claiming that he was admitted to AIIMS hospital on that date. Impugned order deals with the aspect of overwriting in the bills of AIIMS which are filed and also notes that petitioner/plaintiff failed to file the discharge summary in the court as regards his admission and discharge from AIIMS hospital.
5. Whatever be the factual issues, in my opinion, powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not meant to be invoked and exercised once trial court takes a possible and plausible view by reading of the medical papers and holding that since there is overwriting, the same cannot be considered. High Court, sitting in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is surely not expected to examine issues of imposition of costs of an amount of Rs.2,000/- which is imposed upon the petitioner/plaintiff on account of an adjournment being caused in the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff himself.
6. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 14, 2014 Ne