JUDGMENT : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is direct against order dated 3.3.16 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for examination of the other witnesses before his examination as witness, stands rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that in a petition preferred by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from a rented premises, the petitioner preferred an application before the Rent Tribunal, with the prayer that before her own examination, other witnesses may be examine. The prayer was made on the ground that the petitioner, an old lady of 61 years, is suffering from heart disease and diabetes. 3. The application has been rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that earlier an application preferred by the petitioner for her examination by appointment of Commissioner stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal and aggrieved thereby, a petition preferred by the petitioner before this court has also been dismissed. The Rent Tribunal observed that on the similar ground, the application as aforesaid, appears to have been filed by the petitioner herein, just to delay the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, an old lady, is suffering from the serious diseases and therefore, the Rent Tribunal was expected to consider the prayer made sympathetically. Learned counsel submit that in the interest of justice, the prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 5. It is to be noticed that in the instant case, an application preferred by the petitioner to appoint Commissioner for her examination on the ground that she is suffering from diseases stood rejected by the Rent Tribunal on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced by the petitioner in support thereof. In absence of any satisfactory evidence showing that the petitioner is not in position to appear for examination on account of illness, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, exercising its judicial discretion, does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.