The main legal point established was the limited scope of the High Court's interference under Article 227 and the availability of regular appeal for correcting errors in trial court orders.

Govind Mathur, J.-These two writ petitions are arising out of the order dated 19.04.2004 passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 8, Jodhpur. By order impugned learned Additional Civil Judge decided two issues in original civil suits No. 14/02 and 38/02 with regard to admissibility of a document in evidence.

2. In a suit for permanent injunction bearing No. 14/02 an issue was framed by the trial Court as

under:-"Whether "Kabuliat being unstamped is inadmissible in evidence as also it being unregistered is also inadmissbile in evidence?"

3. The issue was framed by the Court as the petitioner defendant alongwith written statement submitted a document to prove his ownership and possession over the property in question. The petitioner defendant termed the said document as "Kabuliat" executed by Shri Hijulal, father of plaintiff respondent No. 2 Shri Dwarkalal.

.4. In a suit for redemption of mortgage bearing No. 38/02 the same document was filed by the plaintiff petitioner to substantiate the contention that in samvat year 1989 Shri Mohanlal, father of the petitioner, borrowed a sum of Rs. 125/-as loan from Shri Hijulal. Shri Hijulal made an endorsement at the bottom of "Kabuliat" that patta and possession of property shall remain with him till the amount of Rs. 125/-is repaid by aforesaid Mohanlal, father of the plaintiff . The suit bearing No. 38/02 is filed by the plaintiff petitioner being son of Late Shri Mohanlal against heirs and Legal Representatives of deceased Hijulal on 112.1990 for redemption of mortgage and in alternative for possession on the ground of heirs being in possession. The trial Court framed an issue in suit for redemption of mortgage as under:-

."Whether document executed in samvat year 1989 being unstamped and unregistered is inadmissible as a mortgage or as a rent note?"

5. The trial Court by order impugned dated 19.04.2004 ordered that "Kabuliat" as well as the mortgage being unstamped and unregistered is inadmissible in evidence and also cannot be used for colateral purposes. The trial Court also held that the document termed as "Kabuliat" is an agreement, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence as per the provisions of Section 7(7) of the Marwar Registration Act.

6. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing validity and propriety of the order dated 19.04.2004 has contended that the trial Court acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction while interpreting the document and also misinterpreted the provisions of law which resulted into grave injustice and an irreparable loss and injury is caused to the petitioner in as much as he shall be deprived of his valuable right pertaining to the property in question in absence of document which proves his title over the said property. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the document in question is a unilateral document executed by Shri Hijulal, therefore, it could not be an agreement which is essentially required to be a bilateral document. It is also contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the Court below failed to take note of the provisions of Marwar Stamps Act which provides that such a document can be received in evidence on payment of penalty.

.7. Per contra, Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents while defending the order passed by the trial Court on merits also urged that supervisory jurisdiction conferred with the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is having quite limited jurisdiction and the High Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as a Court of appellate jurisdiction. According to the Counsel for the respondents the petitioner may challenge validity and propriety of the order while challenging the final Judgment and decree.

.8. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

9. Before adjudicating the dispute on merits the prime question before the Court to decide is as to whether it shall be appropriate to interfere with the order impugned whi