1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13705/2009 Govind Kumar Soni vs. Addl. District Judge & Anr. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 4TH, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Girraj Das Parwal, for the petitioner BY THE COURT : 1. ` Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The tenant/petitioner/defendant has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 30th September, 2009 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement has been dismissed during the pendency of his appeal. 3. That plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed a suit for eviction against defendant- petitioner in respect of rented premises for necessity of his son Sanjay, which was decreed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an 2 appeal before the first appellate court. During the pendency of that appeal, the petitioner moved an application for amendment in the written statement contending therein that one another suit was filed by plaintiff against another tenant Ghanshyam Das Maheshwari for necessity of another premises for his another son Raj Kumar, which was decreed and thereafter the first appeal and the second appeal filed by the tenants have been dismised and possession has been handed over to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the necessity of the present rented premises is no more. Therefore, this fact may be inserted in the written statement by way of amendment in the written statement. The trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 30th September, 2009, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that another shop No.76 of the plaintiff has been vacated by another tenant and this fact being an important fact in the present case should have been allowed to be taken on record by 3 way of amendment in the written statement. The trial court committed illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the first appellate court is liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reasons assigned by the first appellate court while rejecting the application of the petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for eviction against defendant-petitioner on the ground of necessity of his second son Sanjay and whereas another suit was filed against the other tenant for necessity of his other son Raj Kumar. Therefore, necessity of rented premises in the present case and in another suit was all together different and the amendment sought was not necessary to be incorporated in the written statement. The necessity in one case is of his son Raj Kumar whereas necessity in another case is of his another son Sanjay. Therefore, it is clear that even if another premises has been vacated, the same is not relevant in the present case. The present 4 application filed by tenant petitioner does not appear to be bonafide. It appears to be malafide as it was filed to delay the eviction proceedings. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the court below is legal and the same does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Apart from above, in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Another – AIR 1975 SC 1297, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held that the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power, as in the case of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of 5 appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by re-appreciating evidence. 7. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. BKS/