Supervisory jurisdiction article 227 limits interference trial court interlocutory impleadment orders

The supervisory power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is restrictive and intended to oversee subordinate courts rather than act as an appellate tribunal over interlocutory orders. High Courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction ought not to routine interfere with trial court orders permitting party impleadment unless jurisdictional errors or manifest injustice are established. However, where a High Court correctly sets aside an erroneous trial court order that improperly granted impleadment to an unnecessary party, the Supreme Court will not restore the trial court's order merely because the High Court stretched its supervisory boundaries. Supervisory review is designed to keep subordinate tribunals within the bounds of law rather than correct every minor error. Interference requires demonstration of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of fundamental legal principles. When a substantive injustice is prevented, procedural overreach in supervisory reasoning does not automatically warrant appellate reversal. Appellate courts look at the ultimate justice of the matter before overturning correct outcomes. Balanced judicial review ensures that correct legal conclusions are preserved despite procedural deviations. (NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Ors. | 2026 INSC 8)