Ramavatar Saini v. Additional District & Sessions Judge(Fast

Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. Sunil Singh Singodiya, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Applicant-petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging impugned order dated 29.01.2011 passed by Additional District Judge(Fast Track) Chomu, District Jaipur, whereby his application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as party- defendant in the suit No. 21/2009 has been dismissed.

It appears that Respondent No. 2 Atal Kumar Saini filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4339/2011 the defendant Mahendra Kumar Jangid, Respondent No. 3, wherein present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. stating therein that some part of land in dispute has been purchased by him through an agreement and he has also made part payment, therefore, he is necessary party in the suit.

Learned trial court has observed that application has been contested by the plaintiff by filing reply, wherein it is stated that the so-called agreement is forged one and applicant has separate cause of action and can file fresh suit for specific performance on the basis of that agreement, therefore, it is not necessary to implead him as party.

Reasons assigned by trial court appear to be legal and justified. There is no error of jurisdiction in impugned order so as to interfere with the same.

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 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4339/2011 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.

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.

In view of above discussions, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj S.No.10.