ORDER : J.N. Bhatt, J. The petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No. 1, dated 15-4-1993 disallowing review application and also the order dated 30-3-1990 by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Deceased Karsanbhai Joitaram, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 had applied for a loan and had obtained two loans from the respondent bank, one for Rs. 11,000/- and the other for Rs. 9,000/- on 15-9-1990 and 4-11-1970 respectively. The said transactions of loan were supported by registered mortgage deeds, Deceased Karsanbhai Joitabhai had mortgaged his agricultural lands jointly held with his brother Shamalbhai Joitabhai. Mortgage deeds were executed by both deceased Karsanbhai and his brother Shamalbhai, as Karta of HUF. 3. The amount of repayment as per the stipulation in the contract of loan had not been paid. The said loans were repayable in seven annual instalments out of which only one instalment was paid by the loanees and remaining instalments had fallen due, with the result, certificates of dues had been obtained for the purpose of instalments under Section 139 of the gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961. As per the covenant incorporated in the mortgage deeds, in the event of default of payment in payment of loan, the bank becomes entitled to close the account and the entire amount which is due would become immediately recoverable as arrears of land revenue together with interest and costs. Pursuant to these agreements and provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (BLR Code for short), notification for auction was issued after publication for recovery of the total amount which came to, as follows : Notice fee Surcharge Interest for default, period Interest Principal Total A/c No. 18.00 1390.82 6417.03 3940.63 10,048.88 21811.36 57 6.00 601.50 3280.83 4251.65 8,006.40 16146.38 79 24.00 1992.32 9697.86 8192.28 18,055.28 37957.74 136 Government dues as certified by Talati of the village panchayat......Rs. 1455.09 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Solanki while appearing for the petitioners has raised all the contentions which were raised before the authorities below. The said contentions are countenanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Uraizee while appearing for the respondents. 5. 1455.09 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Solanki while appearing for the petitioners has raised all the contentions which were raised before the authorities below. The said contentions are countenanced by the learned Advocate Mr. Trivedi and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Uraizee while appearing for the respondents. 5. It may be noted at the outset that the jurisdictional sweep of this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is very much circumscribed. This Court cannot be ; allowed to be converted into an appellate Court. The power of this Court under Article 227 are supervisory and not appellate. The main anxiety of the Court is to see whether any jurisdictional error or defect in procedure for holding proceedings have been successfully shown or spelt out. The submissions which are reiterated by the learned advocate Mr. Solanki in this petition before this Court are very well dealt with by the authorities below. It is a settled proposition of law that findings of fact cannot be re-examined and re appreciated in a limited jurisdiction under Article 227. The proposition of law for appreciation of merits of a petition under Article 227 has been extensively explored, examined and expounded by a catena of judicial pronouncements. The writ court under Article 227 of the Constitution has power to see whether any jurisdiction or procedural defect had taken place. In the opinion of this Court, there is no jurisdictional error, there is no defect in the procedure. Since the contentions which are reiterated are very well dealt with and replied in the impugned judgments, it would not be necessary to deal with the same once again. 6. After having examined the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case, this court is satisfied that the impugned orders are justified. That if the appellate Court agrees with the finding of the authority below, then also, it would not be necessary to ideal with all the contentions and reiterate and repeat the same when the Court broadly agrees with the impugned finding. No illegality is spelt out, no jurisdictional error is successfully shown, no perversity is also noticed, with the result, keeping in mind the limited role of this Court under Article 227 and in the background of the facts of the present case, this petition is required to be dismissed with costs. No illegality is spelt out, no jurisdictional error is successfully shown, no perversity is also noticed, with the result, keeping in mind the limited role of this Court under Article 227 and in the background of the facts of the present case, this petition is required to be dismissed with costs. The dues of respondent No. 2-bank have arisen out of loan transactions which occurred in 1970. So the dispute is passing through a long legal conduit pipe for more than a quarter-century. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein exemplary costs should be awarded while dismissing the petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the respondents. In the result, the petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief shall obviously stand vacated. Petition dismissed.