V.B.Gupta, J.

Petitioner which is a Government Undertaking and a sick company after getting concurrent adverse findings from the courts below, is bent upon wasting public time and money. Now, it has chosen to file present petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

2. Before dealing with this petition, it would be necessary to state as to what is the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Law is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court, under this Article is limited.

3. In Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215, the court observed; “This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in –Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee?, AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.”

4. In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned orders is maintainable or not.

5. In Narain Singh through LRS. & Ors. Vs. Shanti Devi though LRS. & Ors. 2010 (115) DRJ 601, this court observed;

“It is settled law that where two courts below have given a concurrent finding of facts, this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not disturb the finding even if there is some mistake committed in appreciation of some part of evidence. Under Article 227, the court does not correct the mistakes of law or mistakes of facts. The intervention of this court under Article 227 has to be only in those exceptional cases where the courts below had either not exercised their jurisdiction or had acted beyond jurisdiction or had ignored the well-settled legal proposition and acted contrary to law.”

6. Coming to the facts of this case, respondent filed a suit for possession, rent/mesne profits etc. against petitioner to whom property in question was let out more than twenty years ago (i.e. in 1990).

7. In March, 2010, petitioner filed an application for suspension of legal proceedings for eviction pending against it on the ground that it is a sick company and as per provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short as „SICA?) respondent be asked to obtain prior consent of BIFR before proceedings in the matter.

8. Interestingly, in the written statement no such plea was taken. Now without amending the written statement petitioner cannot take a new and all together different plea in the application in question.

9. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that purport of Section 22 of SICA is to protect a sick company from legal proceedings which would foist any additional financial liability upon the sick company and imperil the rehabilitation process. The suit filed by respondent is for recovery of rent, arrears as well as mesne profits and not limited to eviction alone. Therefore, lower courts were required to examine the entire prayer clause of the original suit and not limit the question to eviction alone.

10. In support learned counsel has cited following judgments;

(i) Stichting Doen Postcode Loterji Vs. Vin Poly Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors;

167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 333, and

(ii) M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., Vs. Church of South India Trust Association, Madra;

AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1439.

11. Section 22 (1) of SICA which is relevant in this case read as under; “S.22. Suspension of Legal proceedings, contracts, etc.

(1) Where in respect of an industrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a sanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25 relating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any