1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9799/2008. (Jodhana Enterprises & Another Vs. Prabhat Arora) DATE OF ORDER : December 11, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. M.K. Trivedi for petitioners. BY THE COURT : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order Annex.-16 dated 25.02.2006 passed by the trial Court as well as order Annex.-18 dated 06.05.2008 passed by the appellate Court. It is further prayed by the petitioner that the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 13 (5) of the Act of 1950 dated 16.08.2003 may be rejected. The main controversy in this case is that the right of defence of the petitioner was struck off in the suit filed by the respondent for eviction on the ground that the petitioners failed to deposit the amount of rent determined by the trial Court on 27.02.2003 within time and also in the extended time. The case of the petitioners is that his application for further 2 extension of time was pending and the respondent plaintiff had drawn the amount so deposited by the petitioner even after expiry of time, therefore, the learned trial Court as well as appellate Court committed error while passing order of striking off the defence. I have perused both the orders impugned. In my opinion, the legislature has specifically curtailed the right to prefer revision against interlocutory orders; but, this writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the adjudication made by the Supreme Court that if any miscarriage of justice has resulted then the supervisory power can be exercised by the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The concurrent finding arrived at by both the Courts below does not require any interference in view of the fact that admittedly rent determined by the trial Court was not deposited by the petitioners within time and, further, during the currency of the extended time till 27.04.2003. So also, an application for striking off the right of defence was filed by the plaintiff on 16.08.2003 while claiming his right to file the application, therefore, even if the plaintiff drew the amount in the month of January 2005, yet no interference is required by this Court in the orders impugned because the finding arrived at by the Courts below is not erroneous. More so, the finding is based on sound grounds. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that power under Articles 226 and 227 can be exercised by this Court. In my opinion, no doubt the power under Article 227 which is supervisory in nature can be exercised but the facts of the present case does not warrant any occasion for interfering in the orders impugned. There is, therefore, no substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.