1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7600 OF 2009 Satish s/o Satyanarayan Sharma Age 52 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Gurwar Peth, Ambajogai, now residing at Behind Yogeshwari Nutan Primary School, Near S.T. Bus Stand, Ambajogai, District Beed. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Ambajogai, Tal. Ambajogai, District Beed. 2. Rajesh Bhagirath Sharma, Age major, Occ. Business, R/o Shivaji Chowk, Ambajogai. Tal. Ambajogai, District Beed. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondent No.1 waives service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.425/1983 was filed by 2 Satyanarayan, father of the petitioner against Municipal Council, Ambajogai where a compromise has taken place on 7.1.1987, recording shop premises to be given to Satyanarayan within three years. Satyanarayan expired on 14.12.2000. Apparently, no steps were taken out during his lifetime. The period of cause to initiate action for execution would be three years from 7.1.1987. Naturally, the plaintiff ought to have filed execution somewhere up to April 2002. Considering the period of 12 years, as provided in terms of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Apparently, the execution dated 17.4.2003, is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Statute. 3. Contention of Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner that it was recurring cause or that there was demand made by either Satyanarayan or by the petitioner is difficult to be digested. Though there is reference of making demand, the demand is without any demur supported by document. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court has already indicated in the matter of Laxmimant Revchand Bhojwani & another Vs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576, that, "The High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or 3 justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes." 5. Hon’ble Apex Court, also in a three Judge Bench decision in the matter of Rena Drego (Mrs.) Vs. Lalchand Soni & others (1998) 3 SCC 341, again abundantly made clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or the Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Its function is limited to see that the subordinate Court or the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re- appreciating it. 6. No infirmity in order to cause interference. Writ Petition lacks merits. It is dismissed. Rule discharged. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE