AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Defendant-Petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 25th January, 2011 passed by trial Court, whereby Defendants'' application for appointment of site commissioner has been dismissed.
Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that from the first report of site commissioner it is clear that locks of the rooms and shop were not opened by the Plaintiff. Therefore, correct report has not been given by the first site commissioner. Therefore, it is necessary to appoint second site commissioner to get actual factual position of the property in dispute.
I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application of the Defendant-Petitioners.
The trial Court has observed that on 28th September, 2010 the site commissioner was appointed. Now present application has been filed by the Defendants on 19.11.2010. One report of site commissioner has come on record. The report of site commissioner is not a conclusive evidence. The trial Court has also observed that commissioner in its earlier report has already mentioned the fact that Plaintiffs refused to open the shop. Therefore, the said fact will be considered at the time of disposal of the original application.
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order passed by the trial Court is absolutely legal and no interference in it is called for. There is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 1975 1297 (SC) , held the High Court cannot in guise of 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 and Others, 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, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Since the main writ petition has been dismissed today, this stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.