JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of both the parties, matter was heard finally. 2. This writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.03.2010 passed in Civil Suit No. 479/2005 by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby an application filed by them under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code, seeking taking on record the draft sale deed allegedly prepared by the parties in 1991, had been dismissed. 3. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance, permanent injunction and possession against the defendants stating therein that on 12.6.1986 defendants agreed to sell their property mentioned in the plaint for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- for which an agreement to sell was executed and the contract was to be performed within a given time. Further that the petitioners were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract but defendants did not full fill their obligation as per the said agreement. The compromise talks continued between them and on 18.8.1991, agreement executed on 12.6.1986 was modified and pursuant thereto the parties prepared a draft sale deed but the defendants did not turn up for executing the sale deed. Hence the suit. 4. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code was filed by the petitioners stating therein that although the draft of the sale deed had been filed by them with the plaint on 5.3.1998 but while arguing the temporary injunction application, it transpired that the draft of sale deed initially prepared by the defendants and presented along with the plaint was subsequently modified by the parties and a new draft of sale deed was prepared and while making search of the documents, petitioners recently found draft of sale deed prepared later, which had various handwritten corrections made by defendants' counsel on pages 3, 6, 8 and 12. They prayed that said draft sale deed was relevant for just disposal of the suit and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if same is taken on record and that the learned trial court has committed jurisdictional error by refusing to allow petitioners' application and that it should be rectified by this court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. This application was opposed by the contesting defendants inter alia on the ground that basis of plaintiffs' suit for specific performance was the agreement dated 12.6.1986 and the alleged draft sale deed sought to be produced was an after-thought for which there was no reference in the pleadings nor did the plaintiffs produce alleged draft sale deed, even with the application and that the plaintiffs are trying to make out a new case of de novo agreement which cannot be allowed. The application was vehemently opposed and the learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application vide impugned order. It is this order which is assailed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) by way of present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, drawing my attention to the pleadings of the parties, submitted that the agreement to sell executed on 12.6.1986 between one Bhagchand and defendants 1 to 3 had come to an end in 1987 itself because said agreement was unenforceable and later no agreement whatsoever came into effect orally or otherwise on 18.8.1991. It was argued that the learned Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error by passing the impugned order as the averments made by the petitioners in their application were against their own pleadings. Drawing my attention to paras No. 24 and 25 of the plaint and also to the earlier order, it was submitted that the application filed earlier under Order 13 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code had been dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 11.3.1998 where after on 27.3.1998 present application of the same nature was filed. Drawing my attention to para 30 of the order, it was submitted that with regard to the agreement dated 18.8.1991, the trial court had already given its finding, still the petitioners filed second application for bringing the same draft sale deed on record. 7. Drawing my attention to para 30 of the order, it was submitted that with regard to the agreement dated 18.8.1991, the trial court had already given its finding, still the petitioners filed second application for bringing the same draft sale deed on record. 7. I have gone through the impugned order wherein, after hearing both the parties, the Trial Court observed that the disputed document, being a draft of sale deed allegedly having handwritten corrections and cuttings, and unsigned cannot be said to be relevant in view of the clear cut pleadings of the parties. Learned Trial Court has not decided the application only on the technical ground of maintainability of application on account of wrong mentioning of Section/Order itself, but has dealt with the application on merits also and observed that just because the Order and Rule had been wrongly mentioned the application could not be rejected on that ground alone. Learned trial court has recorded a finding that the petitioners had not been able to show as to how alleged unsigned draft sale deed was relevant for disposal of the suit filed by the petitioners. 8. Admittedly the alleged Draft Sale deed has not been filed with the application. Name of the Advocate who is alleged to had made corrections, has also not been disclosed. The alleged draft sale deed is also not claimed to have been signed by any of the parties. The origin of the alleged sale deed is also obscure for there being no disclosure of the identity of the person said to have made modifications or corrections. Moreover, it is also clear from the pleadings that on account of agreement dated 12.6.1986 becoming unenforceable the respondents, after notice to the petitioners, entered into an agreement to sell the property in question to respondent No. 7. The document which the petitioners want to bring on record, is an unsigned draft sale deed allegedly corrected by the counsel for the defendants but even name of the counsel for the defendants who is stated to had made corrections, has not been mentioned. It is also clear from the record that earlier application filed by the petitioners under Order 13 R. 2 Civil Procedure Code had been dismissed vide order dated 11.3.1998 where after, this second application has been filed on the same facts. 9. It is also clear from the record that earlier application filed by the petitioners under Order 13 R. 2 Civil Procedure Code had been dismissed vide order dated 11.3.1998 where after, this second application has been filed on the same facts. 9. After going through the impugned order as also the record of the case and after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs at admission stage, I am of the considered view that learned trial court has rightly held that the document in question was not at all relevant for the decision of the suit in hand. This court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to warrant interference of this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 10. I have taken this view since the law on this aspect is well settled as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised by the High Court keeping the subordinate court within the bound of their jurisdiction. 11. When a subordinate court has assumed the jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by it in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any such jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******