IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (RC).No. 3792 of 2011(O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2011 IN IA.42, 25/2011 IN RCA.4/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER - APPELLANT ----------------------------------------------------- ANANTHAGOPALA REDDIAR, AMBALAM NIKKUNNATHIL, THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT - RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- SUDHA RAJAGOPAL, NIRMALYAM, PATHANAPURAM MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PIN - 689 695. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, ALONG WITH OPRC NO. 3793/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 3792 & 3793 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 .. JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in these identical Original petitions filed by the tenant, who was facing eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Appellate Authority Pathanamthitta, are two interlocutory orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority. Two interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner were one for amendment of the statement of objections and the other for reception of certified additional documents. Under the impugned orders, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed the applications. 2. In these original petitions under Article 227 various grounds are raised assailing the impugned orders. Sri.Sathish Ninan learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases OPRC .Nos.3792 & 3791/2011 2 addressed us very persuasively. We do find some merit in the submission of Mr.Sathish Ninan that the reasoning of the learned Appellate Authority, that there is no warrant for amending the pleadings at all as there is no case that there is error in proceedings, is not satisfactory. At the same time, we are not inclined to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 for interfering with the impugned orders. Supervisory jurisdiction is a visitorial jurisdiction which will be invoked only very sparingly. When we gauge the impugned orders by the para meters, which are applicable for the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, we are of the view that the impugned orders even if it can be said those orders are not fully correct, it cannot be said that they are orders of such a nature warranting visit under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss these original petitions. However we make it clear that if the final judgment in RCA comes to be against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to urge in the prospective rent control revision, which he may have to file before this court, as a ground that the OPRC .Nos.3792 & 3791/2011 3 impugned orders should not have been passed by the appellate authority. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk