1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16022 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 of any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ============================================================== PRATAPSINH NATHUSINH JADEJA - Petitioner(s) Versus SWAROOPKUNVARBA, WIDOW OF BALWANTSINH B. UDAVAT & 19 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner No(s).: 1. RULE SERVED for Respondent No(s).: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,19. MR JV JAPEE for Respondent No(s).: 1. ======================================================================= CORAM :THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date : 24/06/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of an order recorded below 2 Exh.287 in Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2000 by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Himatnagar by which the application filed by the respondent for permitting him to send the xerox copies/photocopies of the documents with Mark 4/1 to 4/3 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad came to be allowed and thereby the respondent is permitted to send the xerox copies/photocopies of the documents with Mark 4/1 to 4/3 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad with a direction to submit the report within 20 days of the receipt of the same. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. N.K. Majmudar, learned advocate of the petitioner is that earlier on previous occasion, the respondent filed three applications at Exhs. 135, 198 and 248 seeking similar relief which have been rejected vide order dated 10th August, 2001, 5th August, 2001 and 4th September, 2001 respectively and thereby request to send the documents for extra information through Forensic Science Laboratory came to be rejected. Despite the respondent remaining unsuccessful to obtain order in three applications, Exh. 287 was moved which is not proper and is barred by principle of res judicata and acquiescence, waiver and estoppel. He, therefore, urged 3 that this court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, should interfere by quashing and setting aside the said order and thereby allow this petition. 3. This court has considered the submission advanced by Mr. N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate of the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the averments made in the petition. It may be noted that this petition is filed against an interlocutory order passed by the learned Trial Judge by which the lis between the parties has not been decided finally and by the impugned order, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution but, in fact, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. In the case of SADHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2003) 3 SCC Page 524, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the petition would not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution but would lie under Article 227 of the Constitution against the 4 interlocutory order passed by the Trial Court. 6. It is settled principle of law that the powers vested in Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is a supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court must confine itself to the correcting of error of jurisdiction committed by the courts below and it cannot assume suo motu jurisdiction of appellate court and correct every mistake assumed to have been committed by the courts below. It is a review of the decision making process and not the decision itself. The High Court cannot reappreciate preliminary or perceptive facts found by the fact finding authority under the Statute. The aforesaid proposition of law is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of (i) Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim & others, AIR 1984 Supreme Court Page 38 (ii) Khanna improvement Trust vs. Land Acquisition Tribunal and others, (1995) 2 SCC Page 557(iii) H. B. Gandhi vs. M/s. Gopinath, (1992) Supplementary 2 SCC Page 312 and (iv) State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others, (2000) 1 SCC Page 4. 5 7. It is also required to be mentioned at this stage the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OUSEPH MATHAI and others vs. M. ABDUL KHADIR reported in (2002) 1 SCC Page 319 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has aptly laid down the scope of petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution and held that petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be treated like an extension of statutory appeal or revision. 8. Mr. Nirav Majmudar, learned advocate of the petitioner could not demonstrate what jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Trial Judge in passing the impugned order and also what prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. 9. Seen in the above context, the petition lacks merits and deserves to be rejected. 10. For the forgoing reasons, the petition fails and accordingly, it is rejected with no order as to costs. 6 Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. ( A.M. Kapadia, J. ) hki