1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13911/2009 Sumit v/s Om Prakash Mathur & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 9, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Manish Sharma, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The applicant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby his application under O.1 R.10, CPC, in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the defendant-respondent No.2, has been rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although this is a suit for injunction only filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the defendant-respondent No.2, but the applicant has come to know that both are entering into a compromise in respect of 2 property in dispute in the suit whereas the applicant and plaintiff, both are the owners of property in dispute, therefore, his right may be affected, in case, any adverse compromise is taken place in between the plaintiff and defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is a necessary party and the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting his application. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting his application in the impugned order. There is no dispute that the present suit is a suit for injunction alone and no declaration in respect of property in dispute, has been sought. The injunction suit can be filed only against those persons who are sought to be restrained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court had observed that no relief has been sought in the present case against the applicant and application is opposed by the plaintiff and defendant, both. The reasons assigned by the trial court, appear to be reasonable and they do not call for any interference by 3 this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The plaintiff is a master of his own suit and he cannot be compelled to implead any person as a party in the suit. If necessary party has not been impleaded, then suit itself can be dismissed on this ground. Apart from the above, it is also relevant to mention that even if any compromise is taken place in the present case in between the plaintiff and defendant, then the same will not be binding on the petitioner and it is also open for the petitioner to file a separate suit claiming his own right independently, in the property in dispute. 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 4 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 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. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. chauhan/