Article 227 jurisdiction cannot correct mere errors absent patent illegality or manifest miscarriage of justice.

The petitioners, legal heirs and successors of the original defendants in Ejectment Suit No. 192 of 2016, challenged two orders: the order dated 28 July 2025 of the Judge Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, dismissing four applications filed by them, and the order dated 24 September 2025 of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, dismissing their revision against the trial court’s order

The four applications sought: recall or modification of the order adding the Administrator General, Government of West Bengal, in place of defendant no. 2; restoration of possession of a godown/servants’ quarter allegedly taken over by the landlords; recall of the order allowing amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; and removal of a roller shutter and other obstructions allegedly preventing access to the tenanted premises

The petitioners alleged that the roller shutter and other measures amounted to illegal dispossession during the pendency of the ejectment suit and that the amendment introduced a new ground of nuisance into the plaint

The opposite parties contended that both original defendants had died, that their heirs were United Kingdom residents who had not pursued or protected the premises, and that the roller shutter had been installed in 2023 to safeguard the vacant property from outsiders

1. Whether the trial court acted illegally or with material irregularity in refusing to restore possession to the petitioners and in declining to direct removal of the roller shutter and other alleged obstructions during the pendency of the ejectment suit

2. Whether the trial court ought to have recalled or modified its order adding the Administrator General, Government of West Bengal, in place of defendant no. 2

3. Whether the order allowing amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was liable to be recalled on the grounds that it introduced a new ground of nuisance and was passed without an effective opportunity of hearing

4. Whether the impugned orders disclosed a patent illegality, manifest error, gross abuse of jurisdiction, or miscarriage of justice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

5. Whether the order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, dismissing the petitioners’ revision suffered from any legal infirmity

The Court applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that the High Court does not act as an appellate court, reappreciate evidence, or substitute its own view for that of the subordinate court; interference is justified only in cases of unwarranted assumption or gross abuse of jurisdiction, unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction, patent error of law, serious dereliction of duty, or flagrant violation of fundamental principles of justice

The Court considered the powers under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC concerning addition or substitution of parties, Order VI Rule 17 CPC concerning amendment of pleadings, and Section 151 CPC concerning the court’s inherent powers to secure the ends of justice

It relied on Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745, as well as Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, for the restricted scope of Article 227 review

The Court also referred to Gopal Chandra Ghosh v. Tinkari Ray, (2016) 2 CHN 1, on restoration of possession where dispossession results from abuse of process or violation of a court order, but found that principle inapplicable on the facts

The Court found no jurisdictional error or manifest illegality in the trial court’s refusal to restore possession or remove the protective structures.

The original defendants had died in 2019 and 2022, and their heirs, residing in the United Kingdom, had not appeared to pursue the suit or protect the premises; in those circumstances, the landlord’s installation of a roller shutter in 2023 could reasonably be viewed as a protective measure for an unattended property rather than an established act of unlawful dispossession

The Court also noted the landlord’s submission that the protective measures would be removed once the defendants physically appeared and took possession, thereby finding no apparent miscarriage of justice

As to the amendment, the record showed that the petition had been served on the defendants, negating the allegation that the order was passed without an opportunity of hearing. The amendment related to subsequent incidents considered relevant to adjudication of the dispute and therefore did not warrant supervisory interference

Given the limited scope of Article 227, the Court declined to reassess the factual conclusions of the subordinate courts or interfere merely because another view might be possible

It similarly found no serious challenge or illegality in the Chief Judge’s revisional order

The refusal to restore possession, remove the roller shutter, recall the amendment order, or modify the order concerning the Administrator General did not warrant interference under Article 227

The order dated 24 September 2025 of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, was also upheld.

Accordingly, C.O. 3856 of 2025 was dismissed, with no interference with either impugned order