Radhey Shyam Mittal vs Kishori Sharan Agarwal and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Admit.

Shri Mohd. Anees, Advocate, appears for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This writ petition, on behalf of the defendant, is directed against the impugned order dated 16th July, 2008, passed by the trial court whereby his application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 CPC has been rejected.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application and after considering the same, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same.

Apart from above, it is also relevant to mention that the present suit for eviction was filed in the year 2002. The plaintiff''s evidence was closed in the matter way back on 20th February, 2006.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 1975 1297 (SC) held that the High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with finding of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It''s function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, , held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.