ORDER : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner assailing the order dated 17/01/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Keshavrai Patan, District Bundi (Rajasthan) in Civil Suit No. 16/2013 titled as Kishan Lal v. Kesari Lal, whereby the application filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 to 4 under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC was allowed and they have been impleaded as defendants in the suit. 2. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a civil suit against the defendant/respondent No. 1 for partition and permanent injunction stating therein that the suit properties mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint, are undivided ancestral properties of the parties to the suit. 3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 to 4 filed separate applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC stating therein that they are real sisters of the plaintiff and defendant, and are daughters of Late Bhanwar Lal, therefore, they also have a share in the property in dispute since birth. It is also stated that the suit has been filed in collusion, without impleading them as party to the suit, whereas, each of the applicant/respondents has ?th share in the property of their deceased father Bhanwar Lal, and prayed to implead them as party to the suit. In support of the applications, the applicant/respondents filed affidavits also. 4. The plaintiff filed reply to the applications denying the averments made in the applications and prayed to dismiss the applications. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the applications of the applicant/respondents No. 2 to 4 and directed the plaintiff to implead them as defendants. 6. While deciding the applications, learned trial Court observed that the present suit has been filed for division of ancestral property and the applicants are real sisters of parties to the suit, therefore, they also have a right and title in the ancestral property. 6. While deciding the applications, learned trial Court observed that the present suit has been filed for division of ancestral property and the applicants are real sisters of parties to the suit, therefore, they also have a right and title in the ancestral property. Learned trial Court also observed that it reveals from the affidavits filed in support of the applications that the applicants are real sisters of the parties to the suit and daughters of late Bhanwar Lal, therefore, presence of the applicants before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the respondents No. 2 to 4 are not sisters of the plaintiff/petitioner, nor he has claimed any relief against them, therefore, they are not at all necessary party in the said civil suit filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that if they want to seek any relief, they could have filed a separate suit. 8. To me, the observations of learned trial Court are legally sound and based on facts available on record. The impugned order cannot be held illegal or perverse or arbitrary or unconstitutional or against the statutory provisions of law by any stretch of imagination. 9. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court in exercise of it's power of superintendence, cannot interfere with the orders of Courts subordinate to it, nor can it act as a court of appeal over the orders of the courts subordinate to it. 10. It is settled legal position that the High Court can interfere in it's power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. The Court, in exercise of it's power of superintendence can not interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. 11. The Court, in exercise of it's power of superintendence can not interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. 11. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in support of the impugned order and the pleadings taken by the petitioner, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. 13. In view of above, the stay application is also dismissed.