.•^•*' w- ,^< IN THE HXOH GGURT OF GHH&TTZSGAKH AT BILASPUR '•«r- Writ Petltion No. ^8>&§/2003.' PETITIONBR ^s^^' ^^^•'" -^^•'" ..*• .^ ,^^- ^•":"" : RESPONDENT Nathu Ram Su.rya.y.a.nshl S/o Sadh Ram Suryavanshi, aged a'bout 59 years, resident o£ Jagmahant, Tehsil Nawagarh, Distt. 3'anjgir-Champa (e.Q.}. Versus Raja Singh S/o TaKhat Singh, aged about SO years, resident of Jagmahant, Tehsit Nawagarh, Qistt. J'anjglr-Champa (C.G.). ]^T pETnioNjjt^^&£Ti3iE..ji6/^l-OELTHiE-£2S2£S22i.2!i; OF IK&IA : • . : . : , , : i,'l¥T IE-; XI-HC-22 's^ -awM'a,. »Tit'y'K»,l««ni'(iy ^SI'^I Rt-ii'b snlsi »)*11<tl «t 3ff§E?r'q^g? *ii*<i!i( a>tii';n " T " "^ T^^t^ 20»3 {c|'(»<ia""""~""""""""""""" siT^t^aiwg^g tO.09.2003 Hea'dShri'PushperKira K. Pat^l, coiinsel -fbr the petittoner. The petiti<mer' toe filed this Constitution of India, by which he in Civil Appeat No.Z-B/aXX), where Ciass-It, Jarygir; in Civil Suit Nc petitibner for' reeovery of Rs.3fl00/^ clhl4fo4t*l *ir*i<n£^Ef^li^^R«-$t< ^'ai^mSll^l petitionunderArt-icle 226/227 of the lias challenged Ihe impugifed judgment dated 04.04.2003 passed by the Se^ond Additionol Sessions Judge, Jan^ir, 3Y, the appellate Court maintained the jydgfflent and decreedated 25.1149 ptssed bytheSecond Civil Judge, .32-B/96, by which the suit of the .MKisdismissed. The petitioher^ case is tl^it he filed a civil suitagainst the r-espondent be'fore the Court of Sec^nd Civil^udge.JorygK'.forrecovwy of Rs.3^00/-,<mJhe^ir^tfth^<i)OL23iBLJ580thepeti1^ withithe i'esp<»aeivt"^^aa^iatm»tiTt":a^ the^respQiident inifc^t^of th^pe^tioter, buton'demand ^ had not returned the amount. Th^ tr-ial Court vide Jts^ judgment dated 25.11.99 reached the conclusion thert' the plaintiff hos filedtto prwe that he kept Rs.3.(XX)/- with.the defendon('. The Cowt- observed thot even the witnesses to the receipt have not which is said td.be executedmiy Accordingly, as per the judgment <rf| seen examined, •therefpre, the receipt u of Rs.SflOO/- hias not beetf proved. the trial Court, the plaintiff/petitioner failed to prove that he gave Rs.3,0(X(i/- to the respondent cgoinst which the plaintiff/petjtioner' preferred an apptsal cnd the lea'nedapRellate Court also dismissed the appeal affirming the j(jdgment ond decreeof the trial Cowt. Since under-the amended proyision of the Code of Civil Procedure no second Rti*^TVCSi' XI-HC-22 sn^r'w :R;-<i* 3I^E?I sh+flcfr'H^T c Soma ^^'^s^ssss^s^s^^^ '3^ ''(l'I<i<rl^ aitl'a'(s, fqw'uy 3T(^?T *0t<»> 1^:-^>-^-S©S, WHMF SbHlcb 2003, Rl'b<SST' ^ifl^i ^ai^ '^% - ^' exercise itsjwisdiction as a Court <*>wf<"i'4l'i im^F'^'^S <h<^i< •^'Slf^RStS® appeal lies, the petitioner- has pFefen(ed this writ petition tinder Article 227 of the Constitution of Indid. - Under Article 227of the C<Aistitution of India, this Court- cannot of appeal. This Court is entitled to interfere with the finding of tt>4 subordinate Court bnly when the subordinate Gourt has exercised itslurisdiction which was not vested with thot Courl' or hos not exercised th<] Court orexceeded the jurisdiction a^ The jurisdiction undisr' Article ^Z^ supeF^isoryjurisdictionbyWhich'fhe wjthintheir Ijmits aspefthe law. Th] jupisdictipn which was vested in the passed anyorder contrary to the law. of the Constitution of India is a Cbyrt cari keep the subordinate (^Hjrts |,{ur'isdiction imder Aj'tiele 227"of the Constitution oflndia cahnot.Be e?^cised As a <g)urt' jof oppeal. In tlie circums+ances, ;the concuprenfc? fintjing ^of both sth^ disturbeAasaCburtofQppsot- ~ Therefore, there isno subsf{ince tri-this (letitiori and tiie sane is liable to be clismtssed. Accordingly, t^ e petition is dismissed. Consequently. I.A.No.8403/20((3 stcnds disposedof. SdA : L.C. Bhadoo Judge ••<;/ <..- {1^^^F^ -lll-li-