1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4039 OF 2009 Sachin Yallappa Jadhav & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Putalabai Pandurang Gaikwad & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.L.S.Deshmukh i/by Mr.Pramod Patil for the petitioners. Ms.Jai V. Kanade for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are defendants in a suit filed by the 1st respondent. The suit filed by the 1st respondent was decreed and a decree of partition and separate possession was passed. The present petitioners preferred appeal against the said decree alongwith application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed for default and an application for restoration of the said application was made by the petitioners in which they applied for stay by taking out a separate application. 2. By the order impugned in this writ petition 2 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the said application for stay has been rejected. On 20th April 2009 when this writ petition appeared before this Court a statement was made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 1st respondent (original plaintiff) had expired. Adjournment was sought to bring on record the heirs of the deceased 1st respondent. The petition was adjourned to 10th June 2009 and it was directed that the decree shall not be executed till 15th June 2009. Perusal of the farad sheet shows that thereafter petition appeared on board of this Court from time to time and ad-interim relief granted earlier was extended. Civil Application (St) No.12843 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners on 24th June 2009 for bringing on record the legal representatives of the 1st respondent. Another application has been filed being Civil Application No.1789 of 2009 by the legal representatives of the 1st respondent (original plaintiff). Alongwith the said application, a xerox copy of the registered Sale Deed executed on 29th June 2009 by the petitioners in favour of a third party has been placed on record. The said Sale Deed discloses that land bearing Gat No.18 admeasuring 2 hectares situated at village Kavthe, Taluka Uttar Solapur, District Solapur has been sold by the 3 petitioners in favour of a third party. Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court in the suit shows that the said property is a part of the suit property in respect of which the decree for partition has been passed. It must be stated here that on 20th April 2009 this Court granted adjournment to the petitioners to enable them to bring the heirs of respondent no.1 on record. The writ petition appeared on board on 16th June 2009 when ad-interim relief was extended till 23rd June 2009. On 25th June 2009 the petition appeared before this Court. The petition was adjourned for a period of three weeks and it was directed that the decree shall not be executed for a period of three weeks. It appears from the documents annexed to Civil Application No.1789 of 2009 that a part of the suit property was thereafter alienated on 29th June 2009 by the petitioners in favour of a third party. But for the ad-interim relief granted by this Court, it would have been difficult for the petitioners to create third party rights in respect of a part of the suit property. 3. The petitioners have invoked power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is not akin to appellate jurisdiction. 4 The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only to ensure that the Courts subordinate to this Court remain within its bound. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to correct each and every incorrect and/or illegal order. 4. Considering the aforesaid conduct of the petitioners of alienating a part of the suit property admeasuring 2 hectares during the pendency of petition after obtaining ad-interim relief, extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be allowed to be invoked by the petitioners. Only on this grounds the writ petition is not entertained and the same is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)