1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7271/2007 Mohabatt Singh Vs. Sarwan Lal DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 18TH, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr.R.S.Yadav, for the petitioner Mr.Ashok Sharma, for the respondent BY THE COURT : 1. ` At the request of the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant- petitioner in the trial court. During the pendency of that suit, the defendant- petitioner moved an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC to stay further proceedings of the suit for eviction on the ground that subsequent to filing of the present suit, he has also filed a suit for specific performance against one Kana and plaintiff Sarwan Lal, therefore, property of both the suits is one and same, therefore, further proceedings of the 2 present suit be stayed. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 22nd August, 2007. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant has preferred this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that matter and property in issue in both suits are one and same, therefore, further proceedings of the present suit for eviction filed against him should have been stayed by the trial court, but the trial court wrongly rejected his application vide impugned order, which is liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that as per Section 10 CPC, further proceedings of second suit can be stayed provided matter in issue in a previous suit between the same parties is involved, he contended that parties in both the suits are different and present suit was a previous suit, therefore, the trial court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial 3 court. It appears that plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for eviction and subsequent thereto the defendant petitioner filed another suit for specific performance of an agreement against one Kana, who had executed an agreement in his favour. However, he also impleaded the present plaintiff Sarwan Lal as party in the said suit. From the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasonings assigned by the trial court in the impugned order, it is clear that present suit was a previous suit and not the subsequent suit, further the parties in both the suits are different, the subsequent suit for specific performance was based on agreement executed by Kana in favour of the defendant petitioner. In these circumstances, the trial court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner observing that relief, parties and matter in issue in both the suits are not one and same. The reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application of the petitioner are absolutely legal. The impugned order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 4 of the Constitution. 6. 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 5 within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by re- appreciating evidence. 7. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order to cost. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. BKS/