[1]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16383/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16383/2010 BANWARI LAL & ANR. Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(Sr. DIVISION), DAUSA & ORS. DATE: 15.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.P. Garg, for the petitioners. **** Heard the learned counsel for petitioners. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the trial Court, whereby their application has been dismissed to take annexed documents with the application, on record. 3. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that the documents sought to be taken on record are relevant and material, therefore, the trial Court committed an illegality in dismissing their application, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. [2]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16383/2010 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting their application. 5. The trial Court has observed that that suit for eviction was filed way back on 21.10.1989. Plaintiffs evidence was closed on 05.07.2006 and the matter is fixed for defendants evidence since 21.08.2006. The defendants filed application earlier under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 CPC on 15.10.2008 and then again another application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC, which were dismissed on 04.11.2009. The relevant facts relating to present documents were already in the knowledge of petitioners and they have already cross examined plaintiffs' witnesses on these facts, during their examination. In these circumstances, the application is not bonafide and the same has been filed only to delay the proceedings. 6. The reasons assigned by the trial Court appear to be legal and justified and the same do not call for any interference by this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction. [3]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16383/2010 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297), held 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, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's 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 examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim (AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38), held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 9. In view of above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order and there is no error of [4]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16383/2010 jurisdiction in the order passed by the trial Court so as to interfere with the same. 10. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/ [5]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16383/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO.8778/2010 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16383/2010 BANWARI LAL & ANR. Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(Sr. DIVISION), DAUSA & ORS. DATE: 15.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.P. Garg, for the petitioners. **** Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, this stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/