- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order rejecting his application under O.14 R.5 of CPC to frame an additional issue vide order dated 22.9.2009. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that defendant in her written statement has relied upon one Will, therefore, the additional issue is necessary to be framed keeping the burden to prove the same on the defendant, in this regard. I have considered his submission. The trial court rejected the application observing that relief sought by the plaintiff on the basis of cause of action pleaded in it, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove issue No.1. Therefore, there is no need to frame any further issue as suggested by the plaintiff. The reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application of the plaintiff-petitioner, appear to be legal and justified and no interference in the order passed by trial court, is called for by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Another, AIR 1975 SC 1297, the Honourable Apex Court, while considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held that the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power, as in the case of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. 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 of the Constitution of India, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. Its 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 re-appreciating evidence. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, in limine. ;