1,
(
) 500 .
2,
3,
4,
5,
6
6,
7,
8,
9,
8. Learned counsel appeared for the respondent/plaintiff and denied the averments of the petition contending that on the basis of the pleadings, the",
Trial Court has rightly framed the issues and proposed issues are covered under issue Nos. 1 and 6 already framed by the Trial Court.,
9. Heard learned learned counsel for the parties.,
10. On perusal of the pleadings i.e. plaint, written statement, issues framed by the Trial Court and proposed issues, it can be seen from Para No.6 of",
the written statement in which it has been categorically admitted that respondent-plaintiff is receiving rent, therefore there is no need to frame",
additional issues. Moreover, the learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that proposed issues are covered in issues Nos. 1 and 6 which",
are already framed. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Learned Trial Court has passed the order based on the sound",
principle of law.,
11. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution can not be exercised to correct all,
errors of a judgment of a court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant,
abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See:Jai Singh and others vs. M.C.D. and others (2010) 9 SCC 38 5and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs.,
Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329].,
12. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kazimunnisa Dead By Legal Representative Vs. Zakia Sultana (dead By L.Rs (2018) 11",
SCC 208 has again considered the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relevant para is reproduced herein below:-,
“The High Court should have decided the matter by keeping in view the scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for its exercise,
as explained by the Supreme Court consistently in a series of decisions. The High Court while reversing the findings of the Special Court decided the,
writ petition under Article 227 like a first appellate court by appreciating the entire evidence little realising that the jurisdiction of the High Court while,
deciding the writ petition under Article 227 is not akin to an appeal and nor can it decide the writ petition like an appellate courtâ€.,
13. In the instant case, the impugned order is not passed in violation of fundamental principles of law and justice warranting interference of this Court",
under Article 227 of the Constitution. In view of the preceding analysis, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed.",
