1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13909/2009 G.R. Enterprises v/s M/s Shriram Trading Company & Anr. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 9, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri J.P. Goyal, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : The defendant-petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 9.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, Mahuwa, District Dausa, whereby an application under O.14 R.2, CPC, to decide the issues No. 2 and 4 as legal issues before final decision of the suit, has been rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the issues No. 2 and 4, were legal issues, therefore, they should have been decided as preliminary issues, before final decision of suit on merits, but the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application filed in this regard vide 2 impugned order, which is liable to be set aside by this court. 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 their application. The trial court in its impugned order, had observed that both the issues are based on question of fact and law, which cannot be decided without adducing evidence by the parties. Apart from above, the trial court has also given reasons that the plaintiff has already closed the evidence and the defendant's statement has already been recorded and after recording the statement of defendant, the present application has been filed. The trial court has also observed that the present application does not appear to be bonafide but it is malafide, which has been filed only to delay the proceedings of the case. The reasons assigned by the trial court, appear to be legal and justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same while exercising powers under 3 Article 227 of the Constitution. 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 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 4 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/