1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13712/2009 Chaju Ram Vs. Civil Judge (JD), Kotputli & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 4TH, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Ajay Gupta, for the petitioner BY THE COURT : 1. ` Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The tenant/petitioner/defendant has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.43/1996, whereby the application of petitioner to get the rent note examined by the expert has been rejected. 3, The plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed a suit for eviction in the trial court against the defendant petitioner. The plaintiff filed a rent note in the said suit. The defendant-petitioner filed an 2 application alleging therein that his signature on the rent note are forged. Therefore, the signatures may be got examined by the expert. The trial court rejected the said application by the impugned order. The trial court has assigned the reason for rejecting the application that the defendant had earlier filed an application for the same relief on 27th March, 2008 and the said application was rejected vide order dated 6th May, 2008. The said order was not challenged by the defendant before any higher court. In these circumstances, the second application for the same relief cannot be allowed. In these circumstances, the learned trial court was fully justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. The impugned order appears to be perfectly legal and justified and it does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. It is also relevant to mention that the order dated 6th March, 2008 has not been challenged in this writ petition also along with the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2009 for the reason that the writ petition would 3 have been treated as highly belated against that order. 5. Apart from above, 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 4 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. 6. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. BKS/