The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition Nos.394 & 440 of 2011 Date: 19-03-2012 Common Order: These two Civil Revision Petitions arise between the same parties out of common suit. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together. I have heard Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. Respondent No.1 filed the above-mentioned suit for declaration of his title and permanent injunction in respect of 290.4 square yards in Sub-Division No.307-A/2A of Kadapa District. After the evidence was closed, he has filed IA.No.648 of 2010 for summoning the Chief Executive Officer of Kadapa Zilla Parishad for giving the evidence as Court witness. The said application was dismissed. Questioning the said Order, he has filed CRP.No.4630 of 2010, which was dismissed by this Court on 07-10-2010. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed IA.No.966 of 2010 under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for summoning & examining the said witness and IA.No.967 of 2010 under Section 151 CPC for reopening the evidence. Both the applications were allowed by the lower Court by separate Orders, dated 24-01-2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. At the hearing, Mr.A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the very applications filed by respondent No.1 for reopening the evidence and summoning & examining an official witness are misconceived. He submitted that respondent No.1 has to succeed or fail on the strength of his case and that the whole purpose of his seeking to examine the Chief Executive Officer of Kadapa Zilla Parishad is to show that the petitioner does not have any land in Survey No.307/A/2B. In the affidavit, filed in support of his application, respondent No.1 has stated that the petitioner, in his written statement, has pleaded that he owns Ac.0-20 cents of land in Survey No.307/A/2B and that the plaint schedule property is included therein. Obviously, in order to prove that the petitioner does not own and possess any land in the said survey number and that the said land belongs to the Zilla Parishad, respondent No.1 sought for summoning of the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad as a witness. It is trite that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court will not function as an appellate Court and it will only ensure that the subordinate Courts will function within their bounds while exercising their jurisdiction. Even if, while exercising such jurisdiction, the lower Courts commit errors of law and facts, this Court will not interfere with the same. (see The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. & another, Balanagar v. Ajit Prasad Tarway[1] and Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim[2]) Even assuming that examination of the official witness may not be necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the suit, unless the petitioner is able to show that, by such examination, his interests are likely to be adversely affected, this Court would not interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, interim orders, dated 18-02-2011, in both the Civil Revision Petitions are vacated and CRPMP.Nos.570 & 630 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 19th March, 2012 LUR [1] (1972) 3 SCC 195 [2] (1983) 4 SCC 566