1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.14311/2008 Navratan & Ors v/s Board of Revenue & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 16, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Deepak Khandelwal on behalf of Shri L.L. Gupta, for petitioners. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiff-respondent No.3, Sita Ram filed a suit for declaration & permanent injunction and dispossession in respect of property in dispute against the defendant- petitioners in the court of S.D.O., II, Jaipur. The defendant-petitioners filed an application under O.7 R.11 read with section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred of principle of res-judicata and no cause of action has been mentioned in the suit. The application was contested by the plaintiff by filing reply wherein it was mentioned that cause of action, has been mentioned in the suit and specific date has also been 2 given as 30.5.2006, the date on which the plaintiff was dispossessed. The learned SDO, vide its order dated 12.12.2007 rejected the application of the defendant-petitioners under O. 7 R.11, CPC. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendants preferred revision petition before the Revenue Board but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2008. Being aggrieved with both the orders, the defendant-petitioners have preferred this writ petition before this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The only submission urged on behalf of the petitioners in respect of dismissal of the suit under O.7 R.11 CPC is that the cause of action has not been mentioned in the suit. In this connection, it is relevant to mention that the learned SDO as well as learned Revenue Board, both have discussed the matter in detail and have observed that from the plaint itself, it is clear that specific date i.e. 30.5.2006 has been mentioned as cause of action, therefore, contention of the defendants cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any 3 perversity in the orders of both the courts below, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the SDO as well as Revenue Board so as to interfere with the same under 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 4 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 and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. chauhan/