A. B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS Petition is filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India (for short "the Constitution") challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Latur in File No. 1981/tnc/ws/334 decided on 12th July, 1985 answering the issue of tenancy which was referred to by the Civil Court. The said order was challenged by the present petitioner by filing an appeal before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Latur in File No. 87/tnc/udg/2 who, by his order dated 13th February, 1986, confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. Both the orders passed by the Addl. Tahsildar as well as Deputy Collector, were the subject-matter of Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The learned Member of the tribunal, dismissed the Revision Application by his judgment and order dated 20th November, 1988. Thus, there are concurrent judgments of all the three authorities below, which are challenged in this Petition.

( 2 ) WHILE hearing this petition, I have to bear in mind the parameters of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution, as explained by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeetsingh vs. Ravi Prakash, 2004 vol. 3 SCC 682 and Suryadeorai vs. Ramchandra Rai reported in 2003 (6) SCC page 675, wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court hearing the petition filed either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, cannot act like an appellate Court and re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence, while exercising writ of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court take into consideration only the patent error which does not require establishment by lengthy and complicated arguments or by long drawn process of reasoning. Keeping this in mind, I have to appreciate the contentions that are raised by Shri chandole, learned Advocate i/by Shri V. G. Sakolkar, for the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN this Petition, the petitioner has annexed the documents at Exh. "a" collectively. But on seeing the original record which is called by this Court, it is noticed by me that these documents which the petitioner has relied, were not part and parcel of the record and the same were not before the authorities below. For the first time, in this Writ Petition those documents were annexed, that too without taking leave of this Court. Furthermore, no application was filed to take those documents on record. Hence, there is no opportunity either to the party to rebut those documents or there was no occasion for the authorities below to scrutinise those documents. For the first time, in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court will not permit the party to rely on those documents. Therefore, I have to ignore those documents and, then, to appreciate the finding which has been recorded and find out whether all the three authorities have committed an error appearing on the face of the record, i. e. evidence which was before the authorities below.

( 4 ) SHRI Chandole, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the course of arguments, has placed reliance on the following judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court to substantiate his contentions : 1) 7972 Mh. L. J. 35, 2) 1985 Mh. L. J. 311, 3) 1986 (3) BCR 454, 4) 2002 (3) Mh. L. J. (SC) 69 = 2002 (5) BCR 1982 (SC) = 2002 (4) SCC 481

( 5 ) THESE judgments are cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in order to challenge the reference which was made to the tenancy Court by the civil Court (executing Court) before whom the decree in RCS No. 82/1966 is pending for execution. In order to appreciate the points raised, the facts which emerged from the record, are necessary to be noted in brief.

( 6 ) ONE Ramrao was the owner of land Survey Nos. 22-B, 12a, admeasuring 3g and 8a and 9g situated at village Lali Tq. Udgir Dist. Lat