IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO 118 of 2002. Judgment Reserved on 7.4.2008. Date of decision April 29, 2008. Smt. Krishna Devi and another ..Petitioners. Versus Sh. Sant Ram …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondent: In person. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners herein who were the defendants before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff –respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.24,000/- for use and occupation of the property of the plaintiff. The 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - learned trial Court, on consideration of the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. In appeal, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court has been reversed and a sum of Rs.21,600/- has been granted as damages to the plaintiff – respondent. Defendants preferred RSA 302 of 2002 in this Court which was dismissed as being not maintainable as Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) does not permit institution of second appeal where the subject matter in the original suit is less than Rs.25,000/-. The defendants have accordingly filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent appearing in person. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge even when an appeal is specifically barred by Section 102 of the Code. He placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Punjab - 3 - National Bank v. Purewall & Associates Ltd., AIR 2002 Rajasthan 13, holding that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not merely confined to administrative superintendence, but to judicial review of orders as well. It is submitted by the learned counsel that it is open to the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact under Article 227 if the conclusion is without evidence or has been arrived at on manifest misreading of the evidence. He submits that the learned District Judge was not correct in decreeing the suit which had been rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel has made elaborate submissions on the discrepancies in the evidence which, according to him, negative the claim filed by the plaintiff. There is no dispute to the proposition which has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court has far reaching powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct miscarriage of justice. Applying the principles for invoking these powers to the facts of the present case, I do not find it - 4 - as a fit case where the petitioner has been able to make out a ground for intervention in the matter. The learned District Judge, as the appellate authority, on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, concluded that the claim of the plaintiff is substantiated by the evidence on record. It is not as if the judgment is based on no evidence. Sufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground for intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court will not undertake that exercise under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when it is specifically prohibited from doing so under Section 100 of the Code when exercising appellate jurisdiction. In other words, the Scheme of appellate jurisdiction in the Code is that provision of an appeal under Section 96 or Order 41 and thereafter second appeal under Section 100. Section 102 is introduced specifically to weed out trivial matters which the Legislature considered to be unfit for judicial determination by the High Court. This provision cannot be superseded by resort to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In other words, a - 5 - remedy specifically barred cannot be availed by resorting to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. April 29, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.