A Single Bench of Justice Puneet Gupta has while dismissing a petition under Article 227 refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below observing while exercising power of superintendence the High court will not interfere with the orders passed by the Courts unless there is manifest miscarriage of justice.

The petitioner had challenged the orders passed by the trial whereby the petitioner/defendant was restrained from causing the obstruction in the cultivation of Suit property till the disposal of main Suit. The said order was upheld by the Appellate Court. Both these orders were assailed by the petitioner in the present petition primarily in the ground that while passing the impugned orders the courts below have not considered the facts of the case in right perspective and have based the findings which are not as per the record. The courts relied upon one and ignored the other revenue report without any reason. And that in view of the conflicting revenue reports that were filed, the trial Court should have constituted a team of revenue officials to report regarding the possession of the party in the property in question. 

The respondent raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts and require no interference by this Court. The counsel has submitted that both the trial Courts have gone through the facts of the case extensively before passing the impugned order.

The court held that while exercising the powers under Article 227 this court is not to hold as to how the trial Court should have proceeded in the matter though the different revenue reports were before the trial Court for perusal. 

While relying upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in a case titled  Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. Reported in AIR 2015 SC 3269 wherein it has been held that ‘an error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision’. The court refused to interfere in the matter and accordingly dismissed the petition.