1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14061/2009 Manohar Singh v/s The Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City (West) Jaipur & Anr. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 11, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Vikrant Gupta, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed a suit for eviction and for permanent injunction in respect of property in dispute, in the trial court against defendant—petitioner. The plaintiff filed an application in the trial court for appointment of Commissioner for cross examination of the plaintiff on the affidavit filed by her. It was mentioned in the application that on the last date, the court allowed the cross examination of the affidavit before determination of the rent, the plaintiff is a “Pardanashin” lady and 2 she is sick since long time. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a Court Commissioner be appointed for cross examination of the plaintiff. The defendant contested the above application by filing written reply. The trial court after hearing both the parties, vide its impugned order dated 22.10.2009, allowed the application of the plaintiff and appointed one Advocate - Shri Jitendra Sharma, as Commissioner for cross examination of plaintiff on her affidavit and on the basis of consent of both the parties, fixed 14.11.2009 at 2.00 PM for the same. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant has preferred this writ petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that sickness certificate of the plaintiff filed in the trial court was false and forged one. Therefore, the same should not have been considered or the same has wrongly been considered by the trial court, the trial court would be deprived to see demeanour of the witness which would seriously affect the justice delivery system. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order passed by 3 the trial court, is liable to be quashed and set aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reasons assigned by the trial court in its impugned order for allowing the application for appointment of Commissioner. The trial court has considered the sickness certificate and other circumstances and was satisfied with the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to appoint a Commissioner for cross examination of the plaintiff on her affidavit before determination of provisional rent and consequently appointed one Shri Jitendra Sahama, as Commissioner for the same. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court so as to interfere with the same while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no force in any of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Another – AIR 1975 SC 1297, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while 4 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 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 5 and the same is accordingly dismissed, in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. chauhan/