JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is directed against the order dated 1.5.2011 whereby application filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 4 Avinash Chanana seeking restoration of his application, filed under Order 22, Rule 4 and Rule 10-A read with Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C., had been allowed in Civil Suit No. 241/2003 by Additional District Judge, (Fast Track) No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Heard on admission. 3. Petitioner is plaintiff before the trial Court in whose suit for partition a preliminary decree had been passed on 30.11.2005 wherein the proceedings for passing final decree are pending. During the pendency of the final decree proceedings non-petitioner No. 2 (defendant-I) Ranjeet Singh, who was the real brother of the main plaintiff (since deceased) died on 7.1.2010. 4. The non-petitioner No. 4 Avinash Chanana filed an application under Order 22, Rule 4 and Rule 10-A read with Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking substitution in place of non-petitioner No. 2 Ranjeet Singh (defendant No. 1) relying upon registered will dated 30.3.2009 allegedly executed in his favour by the deceased non-petitioner No. 2 Ranjeet Singh. 5. This application remained pending for a long time at the stage of supply of copy to the opposite party as is clear from the order sheets dated 5.4.2010, 30.4.2010, 24.5.2010, 26.5.2010, 28.8.2010, 7.10.2010, 25.10.2010, 10.11.2010. ultimately on 13.11.2010 when the copy of the application was not supplied to the opposite party, despite repeated directions of the Court, the learned trial Court, giving last opportunity to nop-petitioner No. 4 passed a conditional order that in case of non furnishing of copy to the opposite party, appropriate order shall be passed and the matter was posted for 3.12.2010. 6. On 3.12.2010 none appeared for the applicant (non-petitioner No. 4 Avinash Chanana) despite of several calls and at 2.30 pm, the learned trial Court observing that neither the applicant was appearing nor his counsel and nor was the order complied, dismissed his application not only in default but also for non prosecution and non compliance. 7. It is thereafter that on 19.1.2011 that Anncxure-3 application seeking restoration under Section 151 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 4 Avinash Chandra Chanana to which the reply was filed by the petitioner herein. 7. It is thereafter that on 19.1.2011 that Anncxure-3 application seeking restoration under Section 151 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of non-petitioner No. 4 Avinash Chandra Chanana to which the reply was filed by the petitioner herein. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties allowed the application vide impugned order dated 21.5.2011 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- and restored his application under Order Rule 10-A C.P.C. 8. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner. Drawing my attention to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, in particular Section 141, as also Order 9, Rule 9 , it was submitted that learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error as it has assumed the jurisdiction which did not vest in it. The learned trial Court, according to him, has not discussed as to what was the good or sufficient cause shown by the non-petitioner No. 4 which warranted allowing of his application. The learned trial Court, has also not recorded his satisfaction in the impugned order. My attention was drawn to page 22 of the order which reads as under:- " izkFkhZ vfouk'k pUnz pkuuk ds }kjk ewy izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 ,oa 10 ( , ) lifBr vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 tk0nh0 tks U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gS mldk bl U;k;ky; dh jk; xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr o mfpr izrhr gksrk gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa leLr rF;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ ds }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr/kkjk 151 tkIrk nhokuh gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ifj.kkeLo:i izkFkhZ vfouk'k pUnz pkuuk }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr/kkjk 151 tkIrk nhokuh rkjh[kh 19-1-2011 ,d gtkj :i;s gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr ewy izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 22 fu;e 4 ,oa 10 ( , ) lifBr vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 tk0nh0 rkjh[kh 22-3-2010 dks jsLVksj fd;k tkdj iqu% uEcj ij fy;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA " 9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have locked into the impugned order. I do not find any illegality infirmity or jurisdictional error which may cause grave injustice to any party and which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. I do not find any illegality infirmity or jurisdictional error which may cause grave injustice to any party and which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. I have taken this view since law on this aspect is well settled as laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should be exercised by the High Court for keeping the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court has assumed 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 into exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. This writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed in limine.Before parting, it will be appropriate to observe that the learned trial although discussed all the aspects, but while passing impugned expected to clearly write about its satisfaction.Petition Dismissed. *******