IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 6 of 2003. Date of Decision: 27th June, 2008. ________________________________________________________________ Sanjay Gupta … Petitioner Versus Harbhajan Singh … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner (s) : Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl.District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan dated 30.9.1992 whereby he has set-aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). The plaintiff filed a suit that he had entered into an agreement with the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for laying of pipes from the School ground to the Pump House on July 5, 1999. According to him it was agreed that Rs.200/- per pipe was to be paid. Rs.10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as advance and 2 the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- was to be paid in four installments as the work was done. The defendant contested the suit and the main ground of contest was that under the terms of the agreement he was not to lay the pipes but only to carry the pipes from the school ground to the pump house. The learned trial Court decreed the suit by presuming that the agreement between the parties was an agreement of laying the pipes. The trial Court held that since admittedly the defendant had not laid the pipes he has committed breach of the contract and was thus liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-. The learned Appellate Court has quoted the terms of the agreement in para 11 of the judgment. A perusal of this portion clearly shows that the contract was for carriage of pipes and not for laying of pipes. From the material on record it stands proved that the defendant had carried 100 pipes from Mangarh High School for a distance of about 2 k.ms. Therefore, the defendant had definitely done part of the work required to be done under the agreement. The findings of the lower Appellate Court are based on appreciation of evidence. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since no appeal lies in a case the valuation whereof is less than 3 Rs.25,000/-. This however does not mean that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be used as a substitute for an appeal. This would negate the purpose of the amended CPC. A second appeal would lie only on a substantial question of law. In the present case the questions whether the defendant had committed breach of contract or not, whether the defendant had performed a part of the contract or not, are pure questions of fact. There is no jurisdictional error in the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court. Even on merits, I am of the considered view that since the defendant had carried 100 pipes for a distance of 2 k.m. he had done work the value of which was about Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The petition is rejected with no order as to costs. June 27, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. PV