ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

Present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18.04.2015, passed by the Court of Additional District & Session Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 94/2012 by which the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC, for amendment in the plaint was dismissed.

2. The present writ petition was filed against an interlocutory order. When the matter was called upon hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to appraise the Court about the present status of the suit pending before the Additional District & Sessions Court, which was filed in the year 2012. The amendment in the plaint was preferred in September of 2014, after the closure of evidence of plaintiff-petitioner, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 18.04.2015 and the present matter is coming up on board in 2023. On perusal of the Court file, it is also noted that no genuine efforts have been made by the petitioner, since filing of the writ petition, to contest the matter.

3. Be that as it may, it is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 327. In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court only has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after consideration of the facts and material on record.

4. Relevant extract of the impugned order dated 18.04.2015 is reproduced herein-under:-

^^geus nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk izLrqr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dk llEeku voyksdu dj ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;kA

izkFkhZ@oknh] izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr tokc nkos esa oknh ds firk dkywjke ,oa vU; [kkrsnkj }kjk vius fgLls dh Hkwfe Jh y{eh x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr fy- dks foØ; dj dCtk laHkykus dh ckcr vafdr rF;ksa ,oa izfrKk ,oa fnukafdr 01-01-1974 ds lEcU/k esa vafdr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij okn i= esa okafNr la'kks/ku dh izkFkZuk dh gSaA oknh }kjk ;g okn fookfnr lEifRr dk Lo;a dks ekfyd rFkk izfroknhx.k dk mlls dksbZ lEcU/k o ljksdkj ugha gksus ds lEcU/k esa ?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk okn izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk oknh dks viuk okn viuh lqn`ढ+ lk{; ls lkfcr djuk gSA izfroknhx.k }kjk fnukad 06-05-2013 dks tokc nkok izLrqr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr fnukad 27-02-2013 dks izdj.k esa rudh;kr dk;e fd;s tkus ds i'pkr oknh dks lk{; gsrq i;kZIr volj fn;s x;s gSa rFkk oknh dh lk{; cUn gksus ds ckn 15-09-2014 dks ;g izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA ;fn tokc nkos esa dksbZ u;s rF; vk;s Fks ;k dksbZ ,slk rF; vk;k Fkk] ftldk oknh dh vksj ls [k.Mu ;k tokc fn;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] rks rudh;kr fojfpr gksus ls iwoZ oknh ds ikl tokc&cqy&tokc dk volj Fkk] ijUrq oknh }kjk mDr volj dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk rudh;kr fojfpr gksus ds ckn oknh lk{; cUn gksus ds i'pkr okn i= esa la'kks/ku pkgk gS] tks fdlh Hkh i