Supreme Court Bars High Court from Re‑Assessing Subordinate Court’s Merits under Article 227

Supreme Court Judgment on Supervisory Jurisdiction The Supreme Court has clarified that a High Court cannot use its supervisory jurisdiction to re‑evaluate the factual findings of a subordinate court. The decision arose from a dispute over an eviction suit amendment. Key Developments The Bombay High Court intervened in an appellate order that allowed the appellant (landlord’s son) to amend the eviction suit to include an additional bona fide need ground. The High Court’s interference amounted to a review of the Appellate Court ’s discretion, which is prohibited under Article 227 . The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, emphasizing that supervisory power is limited to checking jurisdiction, not merits. Important Facts • The original eviction suit was filed by the father on the ground of bona fide need for himself and his family. • After the father’s death, the appellant sought to add a new ground of eviction based on a subsequent event. • The trial court denied leave to amend; the Appellate Court allowed the amendment under Order VI Rule XVII of the CPC . UPSC Relevance The case illustrates the constitutional balance between judicial hierarchy and procedural law. Understanding Article 227 is essential for GS‑2 (Polity) as it defines the scope of High Court oversight. The judgment also reinforces the principle that higher courts cannot become de‑facto appellate tribunals, a point frequently examined in jurisprudence questions. Way Forward Lower courts and litigants must rely on the specific amendment provisions of the CPC rather than seeking relief through supervisory petitions. High Courts are expected to confine their intervention to jurisdictional lapses, leaving factual re‑assessment to appellate mechanisms. This clarification will likely reduce future litigations that misuse Article 227 for merit‑based reviews.