ORDER
S.K. Jha, C.J.
1. This is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts are not in dispute.
A Civil Suit was instituted by the petitioners which was registered as Civil Suit No. 27-A of 1991 in the Court of 5th Civil Judge, Class II, Rewa. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the trial Court by the petitioners. The trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction by an order dated 24-9-1991. Against the aforesaid order, the sole respondent who was the defendant in the suit filed an appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 1991 in the Court of Third Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rewa. By an order dated 22-10-1991, the appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondent opposite party and vacated the order of temporary (interim) injunction passed by the trial Court. A copy of the trial Court order has been marked Annexure-P6 to the writ petition. A copy of the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge in appeal has been marked Annexure-Pl.
2. It is the legality and validity of the order of the lower appellate Court which has been sought to be challenged in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as a civil revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code is barred under the M. P. Amendment to Section 115 of the Code. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners have pressed upon our attention repeatedly the discussion of the evidence on record by the lower appellate Court in order to convince us that there has been an illegality committed in weighing the evidence of the parties with regard to the question of prima facie title. That was all the more highlighted by the fact that the plaintiffs/petitioners were basing their claim of title upon a registered Will of one Ram Kripal under which they claim to be entitled to the properties of Ram Kripal after his death.
3. The lower appellate Court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the case of the petitioners (Plaintiffs). A wrong appraisal for assessment of the evidence on record is certainly not a question of jurisdiction. It may be possible that in some cases, although that is not so in the instant case, we may not accept the inference to be drawn from materials or evidence on record and may feel inclined to take a view different from that of the appellate Court but that certainly does not confer on us, i.e. on the High Court, to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even if a Civil Revision could lie against the impugned appellate order, it certainly could not be said to be an order touching upon the jurisdiction of the final Court of appeal, entitling the High Court even to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Cases are legion on the point. Not to mention all, a couple of such cases may suffice. In the case of Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76. Hegde, J. speaking for the Supreme Court said :
'The order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.'
Reliance has been placed in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics (supra) on the prior decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav, AIR 1966 SC 153 and D. L. F. Housing and Construction Co. (P.) Ltd., New Delhi v. Samp Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2324. In the case of Delhi Municipality v. Suresh Chandra, AIR 1976 SC 2621 the Supreme Court was rather harsh in its opinion to the learned Judges of the High Court in saying at pages 2623-2624 - 'we direct the attention of the learned Judges concerned to the law declared by this Court.' That apart even as late as in the year 1984, the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim, AIR 1984 SC 38 dealing with a case under Article 227 of the Constitution held that a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. That is a mere supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts. While 'exercising that jurisdiction, the High Courts have to see that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct the error apparent on the face of record much less an error of law. The High Court can certainly not act as an appellate Court and Tribunal and it will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision. In the case of Mohd. Yunus (supra), it was held that the High Court had rightly not entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. It may bare repetition to state that the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution only in cases of erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction; refusal to exercise jurisdictional error of law apparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction, violation of the principles of natural justice; arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority or discretion arriving at a finding based on no material; a patent or flagrant error in procedure; in cases where the order complained of has resulted in manifest injustice. That would suffice to dismiss this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, for it is a case governed by none of the aforementioned circumstances nor coupled with the appellate order resulting in manifest injustice.
4. As a result, this writ petition is dismissed. The respondent/defendant is entitled to his cost. Hearing fee assessed at Rs. 250/-.