JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15-9-1995 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) passed by the District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 676 of 1985, whereby the appeal of the respondent no. 2 was allowed and the application moved under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. by the defendant-respondent no.2 herein was allowed. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner Rameshwar Prasad filed a suit bearing Original Suit No. 134 of 1981 in the court of Civil Judge Dehradun for recovery of amount of Rs. 46,431/- along with interest @ 20% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment and in default for the sale of the property detailed in para 7A the plaint which was mortgaged at the time of taking loan of Rs. 27,000/-. In the plaint, the defendant was mentioned to be resident of Civil Lines, Jullundur City in the State of Punjab. It appears that when the defendant-respondent no.2 was not served by ordinary process of court, substituted service through publication in the newspaper was ordered. When the defendant did not turn up to put in appearance in the suit, the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte and, ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte by judgment and decree dated 25-2-1982. 3. The defendant-respondent no.2 herein later-on moved an application (paper no. 3C2) on 27-10-1983, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 223 of 1983 before the trial Court under Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 25-2-1982, alleging therein that the defendant-applicant had no knowledge about the proceedings in the suit and he came to know of the decree passed ex parte in the suit only on 10-11-1983 and that too, when he received a notice from Mr. N.N. Goel, Counsel for the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant was not in Jullandhar from 24-12-1981 to 15-1-1982, rather he was in Delhi, therefore, he had no knowledge of the publication of summons in the newspaper “Punjab Kesari” which is not in circulation in Delhi. It was also prayed that delay, if any, be condoned. 4. N.N. Goel, Counsel for the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant was not in Jullandhar from 24-12-1981 to 15-1-1982, rather he was in Delhi, therefore, he had no knowledge of the publication of summons in the newspaper “Punjab Kesari” which is not in circulation in Delhi. It was also prayed that delay, if any, be condoned. 4. Plaintiff-petitioner filed objection against the said application by filing his counter affidavit (paper no. 29C2) stating therein that the defendant was having knowledge of the suit proceedings and the defendant came to know of the ex parte decree also as he wrote a letter on 29-3-1982 giving particulars of the suit and the fate of the suit to one Ramesh Chand Nautiyal @ Ramu, whose father is said to be looking after the property of the defendant at Mussoorie. Plaintiff-decree holder claimed that said Ramesh Chand Nautiyal came to him along with the original letter written by the defendant and that the plaintiff retained a photocopy of the same retained with him and returned the letter to him. It was also asserted that the plaintiff told him about the decretal amount; that on 27-6-1983, defendant-judgment debtor came to the plaintiff-decree holder at Mussoorie and promised to pay the decretal amount; that on 13-8-1983, the decree holder sent a reminder to the defendant on 6-9-1983 but no amount was paid; that thereafter the decree holder pressed the decree in execution; that the property of the judgment debtor was purchased by the decree holder himself, who had spent a sum of Rs. 12,000/- over stamps etc. The decree holder also filed photocopy of paper no. 32B in Misc. Case No. 223 of 1983 before the trial Court, which purported to be letter dated 29-3-1982 referred to above. 5. In reply, the applicant-defendant filed affidavit of Ramesh Chand Nautiyal @ Ramu, who controverted the allegations contained in the affidavit of the plaintiff-decree holder and further denied having taken any letter like 32B to the decree holder and also denied that he had received any such letter from the defendant-judgment debtor. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, declined to accept the contention of the applicant-defendant that he was not at Jullundhar between the period 24-1-1981 to 15-1-1982. The learned trial Court has also relied upon the photocopy of paper no.32B, copy of the alleged letter dated 29-3-1982, referred to above. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, declined to accept the contention of the applicant-defendant that he was not at Jullundhar between the period 24-1-1981 to 15-1-1982. The learned trial Court has also relied upon the photocopy of paper no.32B, copy of the alleged letter dated 29-3-1982, referred to above. On this basis, the learned trial Court held that the applicant-defendant was duly served through publication and that he had knowledge of the passing of the decree in the suit. Consequently, the application moved under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. was dismissed by order dated 17-9-1985. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant-respondent no.2, preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which was registered as FAFO No. 676 of 1985 and was subsequently transferred to the District Judge, Dehradun for hearing and disposal. 8. The learned District Judge heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the evidence led by the parties allowed the appeal by a detailed judgment passed the order dated 15-9-1995 to the following effect:- “The appeal is allowed. The ex-parte decree dated 25.2.82 passed in O.S. No. 134 of 81 is set aside on the condition that the defendant shall deposit in a month the entire decretal amount in the court if it has already been not deposited. The deposited amount shall not be withdrawn by the plaintiff without the permission of the lower court and without notice to the defendant. If a part amount towards decree has been deposit the balance only in compliance of this order. Let the record of the lower court be sent back forthwith for expeditious disposal of the case. The parties are directed to appear in the lower court on 5.10.1995.” 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present writ petition, mainly on the ground that after the decree was passed, the property in question was auctioned and purchased by the petitioner who spent about Rs. 12000/- on the stamps etc. that the impugned order is illegal, and without jurisdiction; that the respondent no.2 was duly served by substituted service by publication; that the finding of the appellate Court on paper no. 32-B which is photocopy of the letter dated 29-3-1982 is against the facts and circumstances of the case and that the findings recorded by the appellate Court are perverse. 10. 32-B which is photocopy of the letter dated 29-3-1982 is against the facts and circumstances of the case and that the findings recorded by the appellate Court are perverse. 10. On behalf of the respondent no.2, counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition, wherein the material allegations made in the writ petition have been denied. In paragraph no. 32 of the counter affidavit, the following averments have been made:- “32. That in compliance of the order dated 15th Sept. 1995, the contesting respondent has deposited Rs. 12,000/- towards the balance decretal amount. The photo copy of the receipt is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure No. 4 to this Counter Affidavit. The Respondent no.2 deposited about Rs. 92,000/- in the Court below out of which sufficient amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner voluntarily amounting about Rs. 30,000/-.” 11. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, wherein the averments made in the writ petitions have been reiterated and in paragraph no. 17, which is in reply of contents of paragraph no. 32 and 33 of the counter affidavit, there is general denial of the contents. The petitioner could not deny the fact that amount of Rs. 30,000/- had already been withdrawn by the petitioner out of the deposit made by the respondent no.2 in the court below. 12. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed before this Court. 13. In the case Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash, (2004) 3 SCC 682 , the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that:- “An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal.” 14. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in Surya Dev Rai that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal.” 14. The Apex Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmad and Others vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through LRs. and Others, (2008) 9 SCC 1 while dealing with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has observed as under:- “38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” 15. It may be mentioned at the outset that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and cannot review or reappreciate or reweigh the evidence upon which the finding of the first appellate Court is based. It is well settled that on the point of findings of fact, the first appellate Court is the final court to record a finding of fact. This court in exercise of writ jurisdiciton can only examine whether there is any perversity in the impugned order or whether the impugned order has been passed on misreading of evidence or whether the court below has committed jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. 16. This court in exercise of writ jurisdiciton can only examine whether there is any perversity in the impugned order or whether the impugned order has been passed on misreading of evidence or whether the court below has committed jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. 16. Before the learned District Judge Dehradun, the appellant-defendant pressed his objection against the letter dated 29-3-1982, on the basis of which the learned trial Court had held that the defendant got knowledge of the suit proceedings and ultimately dismissed the application moved under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. The learned District Judge while discussing on the point of genuineness of the letter dated 29-3-1982 has observed in paragraph no. 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment as under:- “11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-Decree Holder argued that this letter dated 29.3.1982 is a genuine document and the defendant even admitted his signatures on this document on 22.8.1995 before this Court. The perusal of the record shows that the defendant had admitted his signatures on the original letter dated 29.3.1982, but he had claimed that he never wrote any such letter and does not admit the genuineness of the letter. I am of the opinion that the burden was on the plaintiff-Decree Holder to prove that it was a genuine letter. 12. There are several circumstances which raise doubt about the genuineness of this letter. First of all Ramesh Chand Nautiyal @ Ramu has filed his affidavit paper No. 48/C2 in the lower Court and paper no. 38/C-11 in this appeal whereby he denied having received any such letter from the defendant-Judgment Debtor and he further denied having shown or sent any such letter to Decree Holder or ever having contacted him in this regard. No envelop bearing the seal of the post office has been filed to show that Ramu had received this by post. The plaintiff-Decree Holder has, however, filed an envelope-paper no. 36/A in this appeal in which the original of the letter paper no. 35/Ka is said to have been received through post. It is interesting to note that Ram in his affidavit denied having sent such an original by registered post. No letter of Ram @ Ramesh Chand Nautiyal confirming the dispatch of the original letter dated 29.3.1982 has been filed by the plaintiff-Decree Holder. 35/Ka is said to have been received through post. It is interesting to note that Ram in his affidavit denied having sent such an original by registered post. No letter of Ram @ Ramesh Chand Nautiyal confirming the dispatch of the original letter dated 29.3.1982 has been filed by the plaintiff-Decree Holder. Ramesh Chand @ Ramu being the son of the care taker of defendant’s property would be presumed to be closely associated or interested in the defendant. The suggestion that the defendant had sent letter dated 29.3.1982 to Ramu to find out the amount of the decree by itself suggests that confidence was proposed by defendant on Ramu. In these circumstances without there being any affidavit from Ramu in favour of the plaintiff-Decree Holder it is difficult to believe that the original letter dated 29.3.1982 might have been sent by Ramu to plaintiff-Decree Holder by registered post. There are no circumstances on record to suggest that Ramu could have any interest in damaging the case of the defendant. In view of these facts and circumstances that Ram has filed affidavit in support of the defendant, makes the genuineness of the letter dated 29.3.1982 highly doubtful and not worth reliance.” 17. Apart from the above, the learned District Judge has elaborately dealt with the controversy involved in the case also in paragraph nos. 13 to 17 of the impugned order. The learned District Judge in paragraph no. 17 has observed inter alia as under:- “The defendant-appellant has filed his affidavit that he was out of Jullandhar from 24.12.1981 to 15.1.1982. He was at Delhi and therefore he did not have the occasion to see the summons published in the local newspaper. “Punjab Keshari” has no circulation at Delhi where the defendant was present during this period. There is no rebuttal of this. In the appeal also, the defendant-appellant has filed alongwith his affidavit paper no. 38C2 medical certificate of Dr. M.L. Sanghi of Delhi showing that the defendant was in his treatment for low back-ache on 26.12.81 and was advised 10 days’ rest. There is no reason to disbelieve all this material.” 18. It is pertinent to mention here that most of the grounds of challenge raised in the present writ petition are the subject matter of findings of fact. M.L. Sanghi of Delhi showing that the defendant was in his treatment for low back-ache on 26.12.81 and was advised 10 days’ rest. There is no reason to disbelieve all this material.” 18. It is pertinent to mention here that most of the grounds of challenge raised in the present writ petition are the subject matter of findings of fact. The findings recorded by the learned District Judge are based on appraisal of evidence brought on record of the case and they are the findings of fact. I do not find any perversity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned passed by the first appellate Court. 19. It may be mentioned here that the Apex Court in the case of G.P. Srivastava vs. Shri R.K. Raizada and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 54 , while considering the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC has observed inter alia in paragraph 7 as under:- “7. Under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. an ex parte decree passed against a defendant can be set aside upon satisfaction of the Court that either the summons were not duly served upon the defendant or he was prevented by any ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. Unless ‘sufficient cause’ is shown for non-appearance of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the Court has no power to set aside an ex parte decree. The words “was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing” must be liberally construed to enable the Court to do complete justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to erring party.” 20. The said case-law was followed by the Apex Court in the case of Tea Auction Ltd. vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry and Another, AIR 2007 SC 67 . In the case at hand, the learned District Judge has also concluded on the appraisal of evidence that the defendant-respondent no.2 was not duly served by substituted service by way of publication and that he was not in Jullundar at the relevant time but was in Delhi and was under treatment of the Medical Practitioner. Therefore, the requirement of Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. stood complied with by the defendant-respondent no.2. 21. Even otherwise, the Original Suit No. 134 of 1981 has not been decided on its own merits. Therefore, the requirement of Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. stood complied with by the defendant-respondent no.2. 21. Even otherwise, the Original Suit No. 134 of 1981 has not been decided on its own merits. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner if the suit is heard and decided finally on merits. This court is of the view that liberal view should have been taken while dealing with the application made under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. unless there are compelling facts and circumstances to justify the dismissal of the application. In the case at hand, it also appears that the order passed by the learned District Judge has already been substantially complied with by the defendant-respondent no.2 and that the plaintiff-petitioner had withdrawn part of that amount, as stated in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent no.2 as back as in January 1996 before the Allahabad High Court. 22. For the reasons and discussion above, the impugned judgment and order dated 15-9-1995 passed by the District Judge Dehradun does not call for any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed outright. 23. The writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy. 24. The interim order dated 27-9-1995 passed by this Court is vacated. Since the Original Suit No. 134 of 1981 was filed in the trial Court in the year 1981, the Trial Court is directed to decide the O.S. No. 134 of 1981, Sri Rameshwar Prasad vs. Sri Surest Chand Anand on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year as far as possible from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.