Supervisory jurisdiction over interlocutory orders requires jurisdictional error or grave injustice; citing opposing counsel needs disclosed relevance.

SC held that supervisory interference under Articles 226 and 227 with an interlocutory order is permissible only where the subordinate court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where grave injustice or failure of justice is shown; absent such jurisdictional infirmity, the High Court should not interfere. It also held that a party seeking to cite a witness must at least briefly disclose the purpose or relevance of summoning that witness. On these facts, citing the opposing advocate without justification was impermissible and treated as an abuse of process. The High Court's interference was annulled, the trial court's refusal to permit the witness was restored, and costs were imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the trial court's interlocutory order without finding jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or failure of justice; (ii) whether a party seeking to cite the opposing advocate as a witness under Order XVI Rule 1(1) and (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must disclose the purpose or relevance of summoning that witness.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the trial court's interlocutory order without finding jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or failure of justice.

Analysis: Interference with interlocutory orders under supervisory jurisdiction is confined to cases where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in a manner causing gross injustice. The parameters governing Articles 226 and 227 require judicial discipline and restraint, and the power is to be exercised sparingly. The High Court set aside the trial court's order without applying those settled limits and without recording any tangible reason showing jurisdictional infirmity or failure of justice.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the trial court's order on the facts found.

Issue (ii): Whether a party seeking to cite the opposing advocate as a witness under Order XVI Rule 1(1) and (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must disclose the purpose or relevance of summoning that witness.

Analysis: A witness list filed for summoning attendance of witnesses must, at least briefly, indicate the purpose for which the witness is being cited. The advocate-client relationship is fiduciary and confidential, and an advocate should not ordinarily be forced into a position that disrupts the client's representation. Citing the opposing counsel without disclosing any role, relevance, or basis for his testimony was treated as an abuse of process and as an attempt to deprive the other side of its advocate.

Conclusion: Yes. The party must disclose the purpose of summoning the witness, and the attempt to cite the opposing advocate without justification was impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was annulled, and the trial court's refusal to permit the witness was restored, with costs imposed on the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory interference with an interlocutory order is permissible only on jurisdictional error or grave injustice, and a witness list may legitimately require disclosure of the purpose for summoning a witness, especially where the opposing advocate is sought to be cited.

---