https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174085 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. en-us Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174085 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174085