Supervisory jurisdiction and pleadings amendment: Article 227 limits interference, and amendment should be allowed absent clear prejudice.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting grave injustice, patent legal error, perversity, or jurisdictional failure, and cannot be used as an appellate review of a subordinate court's reasoned order. On that basis, the High Court's interference with the order permitting amendment of the written statement was held unsustainable. Amendments under Order VI Rule 17 should ordinarily be allowed where they aid proper adjudication and do not take away an accrued right or cause serious prejudice. The proposed amendment was treated as an elaboration of the defence and an alternative plea, with no clear withdrawal of admission or ative delay shown; the amendment was therefore restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the District Judge's order permitting amendment of the written statement; (ii) Whether the defendant's proposed amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be refused on the ground that it withdrew an admission or was delayed.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the District Judge's order permitting amendment of the written statement.

Analysis: The supervisory power under Article 227 is intended to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and is not an appellate power to correct every error. Interference is justified only where there is grave injustice, flagrant legal error, perversity, or a clear jurisdictional failure. The High Court reappreciated the matter as if in appeal and substituted its own view for that of the revisional court.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction under Article 227 and its interference was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant's proposed amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be refused on the ground that it withdrew an admission or was delayed.

Analysis: Amendments of pleadings are generally to be allowed when they assist proper adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided no serious injustice or accrued right of the other side is taken away. On the material before the Court, no clear admission was shown to be withdrawn, the amendment only elaborated the defence and added an alternative plea, and no serious prejudice to the plaintiff was demonstrated. Mere delay, by itself, was insufficient to reject the amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment application ought to have been allowed and was not liable to rejection on the grounds urged.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the High Court was set aside and the order permitting amendment was restored, with the result that the defendant's amendment plea succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 227 cannot be used as an appellate power to disturb a reasoned subordinate order absent grave jurisdictional error or perversity, and amendments to pleadings should ordinarily be permitted when they are necessary for adjudication and cause no serious prejudice or withdrawal of a clear accrued right.

---