Article 227 Not for Routine Interference: P&H High Court Refuses Transfer of Multiple Rent & Civil Appeals

Case Name: Satish Kumar v. Rani Devi & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 16 March 2026

Citation: CR-2435-2026

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to interfere with a reasoned discretionary order of a subordinate court, unless there is patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. Merely because multiple cases involve the same property does not justify their transfer to a single court when they arise under different statutory frameworks.

Summary: The petitioner approached the High Court challenging an order of the District Judge, Panchkula, which had declined his request to transfer several rent appeals and civil appeals to a single court for adjudication. The petitioner argued that all the cases pertained to the same property and involved common questions of fact and law, and that assigning them to one court would prevent conflicting judgments.

It was further contended that the petitioner had not sought consolidation of proceedings but only assignment to a single court. The rejection of the application, according to the petitioner, was based on a misinterpretation of the relief sought.

The High Court noted that the District Judge had rejected the application on the ground that the cases arose under different statutory frameworks, including rent and civil jurisdictions, and involved distinct causes of action requiring independent adjudication.

The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and limited in nature. It cannot be exercised as an appellate or revisional jurisdiction to correct every alleged error. Interference is warranted only in cases of gross miscarriage of justice, patent perversity, or jurisdictional error.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the impugned order reflected a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The mere fact that the property involved was common did not justify transferring all matters to a single court, particularly when the nature of proceedings and governing legal frameworks differed.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that no ground for interference under Article 227 was made out.