Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 578 (AP)

Todendula Venkata Krishnaiah v. Uppu Gangaiah

2003-04-16

V.V.S.RAO

body2003
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 301 of 1998 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovur, Nellore District. The respondent filed the suit for declaration regarding suit irrigation channel and mandatory injunction. He filed an application being i. A. No. 1361 of 2002 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 ( cpc ) praying the trial Court to permit him to substitute 1997 in the place of 1987 in the cause of action paragraph. ( 2 ) IT is his case that in the paragraph narrating the cause of action, by mistake, instead of 1997 it was mentioned as 1987 and that it is a typographical mistake and, therefore, he may be permitted to amend the same as 1997 in the relevant paragraph. The petitioner opposed the application contending that when in written statement he has taken a plea to the effect that as the cause of action arose on 5-4-1987, the suit beyond three years is barred by limitation. A suggestion was also made to the respondent during the evidence that the suit channel was closed on 5-4-1997 and that at the time of arguments, the amendment cannot be allowed. He also contended that allowing the amendment would amount to introducing a new fact in the pleadings and it would cause prejudice to him. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge, by order dated 1-11-2002 made in I. A. No. 1361 of 2002, believed the version of the respondent and allowed the amendment as prayed for. In the impugned order, the learned trial Judge observed as under. In view of the finding as mentioned earlier that the year 1987 proposed to be amended as 1997 in cause of action para of the plaint in o. S. No. 301 of 1998 is only due to clerical mistake, this petition shall be allowed permitting the petitioner to amend the year 1987 in cause of action para of the plaint in O. S. No. 301 of 1998. Since this petition is filed at belated stage, petitioner shall be directed to pay Rs. 100/- to the respondent. Since this petition is filed at belated stage, petitioner shall be directed to pay Rs. 100/- to the respondent. ( 4 ) SRI P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court committed grave error in allowing the application for amendment and that the said amendment would amount to allowing withdrawal of a crucial admission made by the respondent (plaintiff) in the plaint. He also submits that when the cause of action arose on 5-4-1987, on which date the channel was allegedly closed by the petitioner, the suit would be barred by limitation as the suit for declaration has to be filed within a period of three years. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, who filed a caveat submits that it is always permissible for the Court to correct a clerical mistake and a typographical mistake. He also submits that the petitioner filed a suit in O. S. No. 64 of 1997 against the respondent for grant of permanent injunction restraining him from digging the channel i. e. , suit channel in O. S. No. 301 of 1998. Thereafter, the respondent filed O. S. No. 301 of 1998 on 15-7-1998 against the petitioner for declaration of his right over the suit channel and for mandatory injunction to restore the suit channel to the land of the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is justified. He also submits that a revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for correcting the error of law or mistake committed by the lower Court in arriving at a finding of fact. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION ( 5 ) IN the light of the rival submissions, two points would arise for consideration. 1) Whether the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is maintainable? 2) Whether the lower Court committed an error by allowing amendment sought for by the respondent? in Re Point No. 1 revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution Section 115 CPC deals with revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Prior to CPC (Amendment) act, 1999, there was no fetter on the power of the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. However, Section 115 amended in 1976 brought out drastic changes in exercise of jurisdiction. in Re Point No. 1 revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution Section 115 CPC deals with revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Prior to CPC (Amendment) act, 1999, there was no fetter on the power of the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. However, Section 115 amended in 1976 brought out drastic changes in exercise of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with any order unless it is shown that if the order is allowed to stand, it will occasion in failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party. The provision was interpreted broadly so as to allow revision against interlocutory orders as well. This resulted in huge accumulation of pre-trial revisions against all sorts of interlocutory orders of lower courts passed in exercise of their supplemental and incidental powers under C. P. C. This, in most of the cases, resulted in delay in disposal of the suits. Presumably, for this reason, Section 115 CPC was again amended by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999. ( 6 ) AFTER the amendment, the provision reads as under. 115. (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinates to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegal or with material irregularity. the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit: provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court. Explantion:- In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding. " (emphasis supplied) ( 7 ) THE proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC categorically lays down that while exercising power under Section 115 (1), the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an issue in a suit or other proceedings except where the order made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. It was also made clear that revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceedings before the lower court where the suit or other proceedings are pending. In D. Kyathappa v. K. L. Sidaramappa, my learned brother Sri Justice A. Gopal reddy considered the question whether Section 115 CPC as amended by 1999 act applies to pending revision petitions as well. In that context, His lordship interpreted Section 115 (1) holding that revisional power could be exercised by the High Court only in case the impugned order had it been allowed favourably to petitioner would result in disposal of the suit or other proceedings. His Lordship also laid down as under. (a) Section 115 as amended by Act 46/99 which had come into force with effect from 1-7-2002 is applicable to all revision applications pending adjudication, whether admitted or not and the same will have to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the proviso to Section 115 with effect from 1-7-2002. (b) On coming into force of the Amendment Act 46/99 if the order complained is interlocutory in nature and that will not have the effect of disposal of suit or other proceedings, the same cannot be varied or reversed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115. (c) In the absence of any saving clause under Sec. 32, pending revisions which were instituted prior to 1-7-2002 have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 as the same are not saved by recourse to the provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897. (c) In the absence of any saving clause under Sec. 32, pending revisions which were instituted prior to 1-7-2002 have to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 115 as the same are not saved by recourse to the provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897. ( 8 ) IN view of the said legal position with far reaching consequences, most of the petitioners approaching for a revision of interlocutory orders started filing cases under Article 227 of the Constitution. There has been enormous increase in the institution of cases under Article 227. Therefore, it becomes necessary to examine the extent and scope of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers on High Court power of superintendence over the courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Clause (2) of Article 227 specifies that without prejudice to the generality of power of superintendence, the High Court may call for returns from such courts, make and issue general rules and specify forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts and prescribe forms in which books accounts shall be kept by the officers of such courts. The power is conferred on the High Court to suo motu exercise power of superintendence. By a catena of decisions of the apex court, it is well settled that the power conferred on the High Court under Article 227 though wider than the power conferred in relation to the power conferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), cannot be resorted to merely because the high Court takes a different view on the merits of the case nor power can be exercised to correct errors of law or errors of fact. ( 9 ) THE jurisdiction vested in the High Court is essentially a revisional jurisdiction (See R. D. CCB v. Dinkar and Sushilabai v. Nihalchand. But the power under Article 227 to call for the records and examine the case is very limited. It is also well settled that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution being constitutional endowment cannot be curtailed or forfeited nor the Legislature can enlarge or abridge the power under Article 227. But the power under Article 227 to call for the records and examine the case is very limited. It is also well settled that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution being constitutional endowment cannot be curtailed or forfeited nor the Legislature can enlarge or abridge the power under Article 227. The same is not the case with reference to the power conferred on the High Court by a statute. Insofar as the power under Section 115 CPC is concerned, the Parliament has amended Section 115 CPC limiting the power of the High Court to vary or reverse an order only when such order which would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings in favour of the party seeking revision. For exercising power under Article 227, such an eventuality is not necessary. ( 10 ) THESE principles are well settled and a reference to a few decided cases would be necessary. In Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun, the Supreme Court laid down as under. ( 11 ) WE have noticed that in the application to the High Court the respondent asked that Court to exercise its power of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution by the method of issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ. Art. 227 corresponds to S. 107 of the Government of india Act, 1915. The scope of that section has been discussed in many decisions of Indian High Courts. However wide it may be than the provisions of S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is well established that the High Court cannot in exercise of its power under that section assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law. Here there is no question of assumption of excessive jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction or any irregularity or illegality in the procedure or any breach of any rule of natural justice. If anything it may merely be an erroneous decision which, the error not being apparent on the face of the record, cannot be corrected by the High Court in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Art. 227. (emphasis supplied) ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court also observed that merely because the conclusion of the lower court is wrong, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. (emphasis supplied) ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court also observed that merely because the conclusion of the lower court is wrong, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. If an apparent error has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably two opinions, the same cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. In a subsequent decision, in Nibaran v. Mahendra, the Supreme court held that interference under Article 227 (1) cannot be resorted to merely because the High Court takes a different view on merits. ( 13 ) IN Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim, the Supreme Court considered the scope of "power of superintendence" under Article 227, and while observing 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, laid down as under. ( 14 ) THE supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. 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. (emphasis supplied) ( 15 ) IN Khalil Ahmed v. Tufelhussein Samasbhai, after referring to Venkatlal g. Pittie v. Bright Bros. 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. (emphasis supplied) ( 15 ) IN Khalil Ahmed v. Tufelhussein Samasbhai, after referring to Venkatlal g. Pittie v. Bright Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd. and Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Nath, the Supreme Court reiterated that where it cannot be said that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, the error, if any has to be discovered by long process of reasoning and the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It was also held that where two views are possible and the lower Court or tribunal has taken one view which is a possible and plausible view merely because another view is attractive, the High Court should not interfere and it would be in error in interfering with the finding of the trial court or interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution. I have referred to the latest amendments to Section 115 by CPC (Amendment) act 1999. What is the effect of amendment in exercise of power under article 227 of the Constitution? In making such a provision, the legislature intended expeditious resolution of civil disputes. That was the main intention behind the amendments. The amendments made to CPC in 1999 and 2002 were upheld by the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India. When Section 115 CPC is amended enabling the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction in cases where such exercise results in final disposal of suit or proceedings, can this Court, in exercise of power under Article 227, interfere with interlocutory decisions of the subordinate courts and nullify the effect of the amendments to CPC? In my considered opinion, the prerogative constitutional power under Article 227 must be exercised with circumspection having regard to the law made by the Parliament covering the filed of revision of interlocutory orders while the suit is pending. This view is supported by Laxmikanth R. Bhojwani v. Pratapsing m. Pardeshi In the just mentioned case, the landlords instituted a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for possession of suit premises against the tenant. This view is supported by Laxmikanth R. Bhojwani v. Pratapsing m. Pardeshi In the just mentioned case, the landlords instituted a suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, for possession of suit premises against the tenant. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court. On a revision under Article 227, Aurangabad Bench of the bombay High Court set aside the judgment of the appellate court and restored that of the trial court. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended that the High Court fell into error in reversing the judgment of the appellate court by converting itself into an appellate court. ( 16 ) ACCEPTING the contention, the Supreme Court observed as under. Before parting with this judgment we would like to say that the High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India in the present case. The Act is a special legislation governing landlord-tenant relationship and disputes. The legislature has, in its wisdom, not provided second appeal or revision to the High Court. The object is to give finality to the decision of the appellate authority. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. (emphasis supplied) ( 17 ) WE may also refer to another recent decision of the Supreme Court in roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal. After referring to the decision in State of uttar Pradesh v. District Judge, Unnao, the apex Court reiterated that the power conferred by the Constitution under Articles 226 and 227 is for the purpose of advancing justice and not to thwart it. The following observations are apposite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The following observations are apposite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it. The very purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the high Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the byproduct of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law. (emphasis supplied) ( 18 ) I may also refer to the decisions of the apex Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and another decision in Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent. In Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan (supra), a suit filed by the Bank for recovery of money, was decreed against the respondents therein by the debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta. A recovery certificate was granted. The guarantor filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The high Court of Calcutta allowed the said application on the ground that the property in question being situated at Chennai, the Debt Recovery tribunal, Calcutta had no territorial jurisdiction over the same. The supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Calcutta High Court and held as under. ( 19 ) IN our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of the mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the act" ). The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum. . . . We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum. . . . . . . . . . . . The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under section 20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that the court refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. (emphasis supplied) ( 20 ) IN Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), a question was raised as to whether an insurance company which suffered an award given by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution though an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 is available. It was contended that under Section 173 of the said Act, the insurer has limited grounds available and, therefore, a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is maintainable. The supreme Court, while overruling the view taken by the Gauhati High Court, held that the availability of limited grounds to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act being the product of the statute, it is not open to an insurer to file a petition under Article 227 of the constitution. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition under article 227 of the Constitution. It was also observed that even if the remedy by way of appeal has not been provided for against the order or judgment of the District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a petition before the High Court under Section 115 CPC. It was also observed that even if the remedy by way of appeal has not been provided for against the order or judgment of the District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a petition before the High Court under Section 115 CPC. But if the remedy of revision under Section 115 CPC is expressly barred by the State enactment, only in such a case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226. The Supreme Court further laid down the dicta as under. ( 21 ) THE supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. (emphasis supplied) ( 22 ) THE conspectus of various decisions would lead to the following principles in relation to exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. I) In exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High court cannot assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law (Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun - AIR 1960 SC 137 ); ii) Assumption of excessive jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction or any irregularity or illegality - procedural or any breach of any rule of natural justice - are some of the grounds which might warrant exercise of jurisdiction, provided that such illegal assumption, illegality or irregularity results in miscarriage of justice {satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun (supra)}; iii) In exercise of powers under Article 227, the High Court will not review or reweigh evidence upon which determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision. If elaborate reasons become necessary for the conclusion that the decision or finding of the lower court is incorrect or wrong so such an error cannot be treated as apparent on the face of the record (Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim - AIR 1984 SC 38 ); iv) If two views are conceivably possible on a question of fact, merely because the High Court feels that its view is correct, the same cannot be a ground for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227. The decision of the lower court must receive impri matur {satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun (supra)}; v) If, by a special enactment, the Legislature, in its wisdom, specifies the principles of appeal or revision against the decision or a finding, the power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be exercised by assuming un-limited prerogative to correct all species of hardship and wrong decision {laxmikanth R. Bhojwani v. Pratapsing M. Pardeshi - (1995) 6 scc 576 }. ; vi) A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable only when the remedy of revision under Section 115 is expressly barred by the state enactment and even in such a case, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to see that the inferior Court or Tribunal proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. The High Court is not an appellate forum under Article 227 and, therefore, it is not permissible to review or re-weigh the evidence (Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.- 2003 AIR SCW 930); vii) When an alternative remedy is available, judicial prudence demands that the High Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution {punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan - 107 Comp. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.- 2003 AIR SCW 930); vii) When an alternative remedy is available, judicial prudence demands that the High Court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution {punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan - 107 Comp. Cases 20 (2001)}; viii) The High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the constitution is not to pick out any error of law and correct it when justice became the byproduct of such erroneous view of law (Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal - AIR 2002 SC 33 ); and ix) Whether or not a decision of the lower court is incorrect or clearly wrong, unless and until gross error resulting in miscarriage of justice is shown, the power under Article 227 cannot be exercised (Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal);as seen from the above, though Section 115 CPC was amended in 1976 and again in 1999, a revision petition to the High Court under the said provision is not specifically barred. The exercise of power by the High court under Section 115 CPC, by reason of amendment is limited to the cases where the disposal of the application or a petition in favour of the revision petitioner would have finally disposed of the suit itself. This does not, however, mean that the remedy is expressly barred. Further, the judgment and decree that may be passed in the suit is subject to right of appeal if any provided under Section 96 read with Order XLI CPC. Section 105 (1) CPC provides that where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision, may be set forth as a ground of objection in a memorandum of appeal. Therefore, a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. In Re Point No. 2 is there any error in the impugned order? ( 23 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment would change the cause of action and it would amount to permitting the respondent to withdraw the crucial admission made in the plaint is too simplistic argument to be accepted. I have perused the judgment of this Court in Manepalli Venkata Likanatha prasad v. Gogineni Suryanarayana relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have perused the judgment of this Court in Manepalli Venkata Likanatha prasad v. Gogineni Suryanarayana relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same does not in any manner help the petitioner. By allowing the amendment, no crucial admission is being allowed to be withdrawn. Further, the paragraph dealing with cause of action, in my considered opinion, does not in any way finally decide the rights and liabilities of the parties to the suit. As noticed by the trial Court, the petitioner herein filed a suit being O. S. No. 64 of 1997 on 3-4-1997 for permanent injunction against the respondent herein in respect of the same suit channel which is subject matter of the suit being O. S. No. 301 of 1998 filed by the respondent on 15-7-1998. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the mention of 1987 in paragraph dealing with cause of action is obviously a typographical error. In any event, whether the suit channel was closed in 1987 or 1997 is matter of evidence and petitioner and respondent have to prove the same by cogent evidence. ( 24 ) THE petitioner filed the suit only in April 1997 which shows that the order of the learned trial Judge in I. A. No. 1361 of 2002 meets the ends of justice. It does not, in any manner, contain an error, much less grave error apparent on the face of the record. Further, as observed by the hon ble the Chief Justice of India in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance co. Ltd. (supra), in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the constitution, this Court would not correct an error apparent on the face of the record or review or re-weigh the evidence from which the lower court based its decision. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution is only meant for ensuring that the lower Court acts within its parameters of law. ( 25 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.