Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction cannot reopen an executed eviction decree when an appellate remedy remained available.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to bypass an available appellate remedy or to reopen an eviction matter after the decree has been executed and possession delivered under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. Where the impugned orders were appealable, the tenant had not exhausted that remedy, and no subsisting lis remained after satisfaction of the decree, the High Court could not act as an original fact-finding court, direct allowance of pending applications, or compel a de novo trial. The High Court's interference was therefore unjustified and without jurisdiction, and the writ petition ought not to have been entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the eviction order and execution orders despite the availability of an appellate remedy and despite the decree having already been executed.

Analysis: The impugned orders challenged before the High Court were amenable to appellate scrutiny, and the tenant had not exhausted that remedy. The eviction decree had already been executed and possession delivered in accordance with Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, leaving no subsisting lis. The tenant had participated in the proceedings earlier, had knowledge of the remand proceedings, and failed to appear. In these circumstances, the High Court could not have acted as an original fact-finding court, could not have directed that pending applications be allowed, and could not have compelled a de novo trial merely on the tenant's later challenge.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference under Article 227 was unjustified and without jurisdiction, and the tenant's writ petition ought not to have been entertained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the tenant's applications seeking to undo the eviction and execution proceedings were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to bypass an available appellate remedy or to reopen proceedings after an eviction decree has been executed and satisfied, absent a jurisdictional defect or other exceptional ground warranting interference.

---