1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6618/2009. Karnel Singh Vs. Firm Praveen Kumar Ashok Kumar & Ors. Date of Order :: 21st July 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi for Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: The application made by the creditor-respondent No.1 under Section 6 (2) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agriculture Indebtedness Act, 1957 (DRC Case No. 23/2003) came to be allowed by the Debt Relief Court, Raisinghnagar on 31.01.2008 (Annex.5) holding the creditor entitled to recover from the petitioner the principal loan amount of Rs. 94,888/- and the interest amount of Rs. 25,500/-; and directed the debtor- petitioner to make payment of the due amount in six half yearly installments. The revision petition as filed by the debtor- petitioner seeking to question the order aforesaid has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar by the order dated 23.05.2009 (Annex.6). Seeking to question the orders aforesaid, the debtor has 2 preferred this writ petition. It has strenuously been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been various alterations in the relevant entries in the account books so much so that in the entry Ex. 183 dated 11.10.1999, the figure of Rs. 10,000/- was altered to Rs. 60,000/-; that there had been further corrections and alterations in the entries Exs. 190, 172 and 163 but such material alterations have been brushed aside by the learned Trial Court treating them to be of corrections in regular course. The learned counsel submitted that such account books could not have been relied upon and the petitioner could not have been held liable on the basis of such unreliable evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-creditor admitted in his cross-examination about the alterations in the documents Exs. 183 to 199 but such an admitted position has also been ignored by the subordinate Courts treating it to be technical or clerical mistake. The learned counsel also contended that the final transaction took place as back as on 08.10.1995 and, therefore, the application as made in the year 2003 was hopelessly barred by limitation. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner do not make out any case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 In a comprehension of the orders impugned, this Court is satisfied that the learned subordinate Courts have examined the record of the case in accordance with law before arriving at the findings against the petitioner. The aspects relating to certain alterations in the account books have been dealt with by the learned Debt Relief Court in thorough detail before holding the account books reliable. So far the question of limitation is concerned, the learned Debt Relief Court has found the application to be within limitation with reference to the entry in the cash book Ex. 196 dated 31.05.2000 bearing the signatures of the petitioner; and after the finding that the parties continued with the transactions until 31.05.2000, has held the application as moved on 06.05.2003 within limitation. There appears no illegality in such findings either. The learned Revisional Court has also considered the matter in accordance with law before finding no illegality in the order passed by the learned Debt Relief Court. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, sparingly, considered in such kind of cases where the impugned order might lead to substantial failure of justice or to such injury that could be said to be irreparable one to a party to the litigation; or the matters of the like nature. It remains settled 4 that the power under Article 227 is an extra-ordinary one and is not intended to be a substitute for the ordinary revisional or appellate powers, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmed and others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) through LRs and others : (2008) 9 SCC 1 that,- “Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law. “ The present one does not make out any such case of fundamental flaws leading to injustice so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition does not merit admission and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//