Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 6th February 2008, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order VIII Rule I read with Section 151 CPC for taking two documents on record was rejected.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff before the Rent Tribunal on the basis of bonafide necessity and in reply to the said suit it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner- defendant that another shop situated in the same premises was vacated by his brother and at the time of vacating the said shop a receipt was given by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff for payment of rent but the respondent-plaintiff refuted his signature upon the said receipt, therefore, to prove his case that there is no ground of bonafide necessity left with the respondent No. 2- plaintiff, therefore, the petitioner filed an application for taking two documents; one, the Insurance Policy issued by New India Assurance Company and another a letter issued by Central Bank in favour of Satyanarayan Soni, the brother of petitioner on record.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that to prove the fact of vacating the shop situated in the same premises by his brother, it is felt necessary for him to produce those documents on record and these documents were obtained by him when his brother came from Bombay and after making request to him photostat copies of those documents were obtained from him and produced before the Court, therefore the learned trial Court ought to have granted opportunity for taking documents on record to prove the case but by impugned order the application filed by the petitioner for taking both these documents on record has been rejected illegally by the Rent Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, to support his contention, invited my attention towards the judgment reported in 2007 (1) DNJ [Raj.) 1 - Major Kanhaiya Lal and Ors. v. Banwari Lal and Ors. 2004 (3) Civil Court Cases 52 (P&H;) - Panjab Wakf Board v. Shri Neeko 2004 DNJ (SC) 642 : (RLW 2004(2) SC 243) - Jayaramdas & Sons v. Mirza Rafatullah Baig and Ors. and 2006 (4) Civil Court Cases 80 (Raj.) : (2006 (2) RLW 1687) - Murlidhar v. Nandkishore and Ors. Learned Counsel argued that in view of the above judgments and facts of the case, the additional evidence produced by the petitioner alongwith the application may be ordered to be taken on record and impugned order may kindly be set aside.
4. On other hand, learned Counsel for non-petitioner- respondent No. 2 argued that the order impugned is perfectly legal order, it does not require any interference by this Court. Further, it is submitted that both the documents are irrelevant so also in the application, which is filed at belated stage, it is nowhere stated by the petitioner that when he has got knowledge of these documents which are of the year 1999. Further, it is submitted that upon perusal of both these documents, it is obvious that the documents are totally, irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy in this. case. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 drew attention of the Gourt towards Para 37 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2003 (2) WLC 355 : RLW 2003(4) SC 523 - Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., in which reads as under:
Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:
(1) Amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., When a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a longdrawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Courtdictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Learned Counsel for non-petitioner respondent No. 2 argued that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court power to issue a writ of certiorari under supervisory jurisdiction is required to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Learned Counsel also submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order after considering all aspects of the matter and there is no grave injustice which requires any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, first of all, it is clear that there is no quarrel with regard to law laid down by this Court or by the Apex Court that in the event of any relevancy of any document, the document can be taken on record. But, in this case, the learned trial Court has observed that these documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy. Similarly, upon receipt filed by the petitioner-respondent alleging signature of non- petitioner-plaintiff, he has cross examined the plaintiff because plaintiff non-petitioner denied his signature upon the receipt. Similarly, the policy of Insurance Company and the letter issued by the Central Bank were found to be not relevant for the purpose of deciding controversy because both photo copies of these documents do not show that Shri Satyanarayan was having a shop in the same premises where the suit property is situated. Similarly, the application does not disclose when these document came in the knowledge of the petitioner and why these documents are filed at belated stage. Therefore, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not sit as a appellate authority to assess the validity of the order passed by the Rent Tribunal upon application filed under Order VIII Rule I read with Section 151 CPC. Likewise, on the basis of principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case Surya Devi Rai (supra), I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned,
Hence, this petition is dismissed.