JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused impugned orders dated 29.04.2015 (Annex.7) and 22.07.2015 (Annex.9) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Court below'). By the order Annex.7, learned Court below has allowed application of the respondent-plaintiffs under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking on record partnership deed along with certificate of its registration and by subsequent order (Annex.9) the learned Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 1 read with Order 14, Rule 1 CPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 93,338/- against petitioner-defendant, which was allegedly outstanding on account of business transaction between the rival parties. In the suit, the respondent-plaintiffs have averred that they are partner of the Firm, and as such they are authorised to initiate proceedings on behalf of the Firm. As a matter of fact, in the plaint, no specific averment was made regarding the status of the Firm as to whether it is an unregistered Firm or a registered partnership Firm. In order to wriggle out from this omission, the respondent-plaintiffs made endeavour to lay appropriate application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking on record partnership deed along with certificate of its registration and the learned Court below vide its order (Annex.7) allowed the prayer of the respondent-plaintiffs. After passing of order Annex.7, the petitioner submitted an application under Order 6, Rule 1 read with Order 14, Rule 1 CPC raising objection that the partnership deed and its registration certificate cannot be exhibited as there is no pleading to this effect in the plaint. The said objection of the petitioner is turned down by the learned Court below vide its order Annex.9. It is in that background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking indulgence in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 3. At the outset, it may be observed that although respondent-plaintiffs have not made a specific averment about the status of Firm in the plaint but the fact remains that it has made endeavour to show that its status is that of a Firm and both of them are its partners. 3. At the outset, it may be observed that although respondent-plaintiffs have not made a specific averment about the status of Firm in the plaint but the fact remains that it has made endeavour to show that its status is that of a Firm and both of them are its partners. Considering that aspect of the matter, the learned Court below, while exercising its discretion has allowed the application of respondent-plaintiffs under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking partnership deed as well as registration certificate on record. When these two documents were sought to be exhibited by the respondent-plaintiffs during evidence, the petitioner objected precisely by taking shelter of Order 6, Rule 1 read with Order 14, Rule 1 CPC. Learned Court below, while appreciating the objection of the petitioner and further taking into account the fact that by order Annex.7 the documents were allowed to be taken on record, declined the prayer of the petitioner. 4. Upon perusal of order Annex.7, in my considered opinion, learned Court below has exercised its discretion to farther the interest of justice, and therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Court below has committed any error much less an error apparent on the face of record, or it has transgressed its jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once the documents are allowed to be taken on record, if any evidence is tendered and documents are sought to be exhibited, in my opinion, defendant's objections in this behalf cannot be countenanced, and consequently, the learned Court below has rightly rejected application of the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 1 read with Order 14, Rule 1 CPC. 5. It is needless to observe here that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised with great care and circumspection and the said jurisdiction is not akin to that of appellate jurisdiction. Apex Court in its authoritative pronouncement in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [ (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] has held that petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are to be entertained sparingly, more particularly, in relation to property disputes and money recovery suits. 6. In totality, learned Court below has made an endeavour to do substantial justice in the matter. Therefore, it is not desirable to upset the impugned order. 7. 6. In totality, learned Court below has made an endeavour to do substantial justice in the matter. Therefore, it is not desirable to upset the impugned order. 7. Before parting, it may be observed that by the instant petition, petitioner has assailed two orders which is not permissible but then the Court has examined both the orders and has fully concurred with the findings of the learned Court below.Resultantly, petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******