IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16401 of 2011 Jasraj Kuer & Ors Versus Rang Bahadur Singh & Ors ----------- 04. 20.10.2011 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Om Prakash Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 01.06.2011 passed by F.T.C. III, Bhabhua in title appeal no.41 of 2003/34 of 2009, the limitation application filed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 in title appeal has been allowed and the delay of 679 days has been condoned. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that some documentary evidences have been produced before the Court below and after considering the documentary evidences and also the various decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, the learned Court below has taken the view that the delay in this case is to be condoned. In this case, two views are possible. On the basis of the materials available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below has condoned the delay. In such circumstances, the other possible view cannot be arrived at by the High Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principles of law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not turn itself to an 2 appellate court and re-appreciate the materials available on record to substitute its own finding. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the learned Court below has exercised the jurisdiction properly is concerned also, I find no force because for that reason the Court has to go into evidence and the materials available on record and come to a different finding which cannot be done. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)