JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Navneet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff. 2. Record in question reflects that the respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit against Hare Ram Tiwari (grandfather of petitioner) for execution of sale deed in their favour in respect of plot no.305 area 2.80 acre situated at village Balihar Pargana, Post and District Ballia; plot no.519 area 98 decimal and plot no.532 area 94 decimal situated at village Dighar Pargana, Post and District Ballia, which was numbered as Original Suit No.28 of 1996 (Om Prakash Tiwari and others v. Hare Ram Tiwari). Record in question further reveal that in the said suit proceeding, Hare Ram Tiwari died on 12.02.2006 and the father of the present petitioner was substituted in place of Hare Ram Tiwari and he was also died on 29.03.2008. It has also been claimed that petitioner-defendant is the only claimant of property in question and in between the brother of petitioner namely Anil Tiwari has also died on 22.09.2012. In the said suit, the name of petitioner was also substituted and he has also filed his counter claim. Finally, it is claimed that the aforesaid suit in question was decreed on 15.09.2012 ex-parte without serving the notice upon the petitioner on his address at West Bengal and only when he has visited his native village on 18.09.2015, then he got knowledge about the ex parte decree dated 15.09.2012. Being aggrieved with the same, he has moved recall application on 19.09.2015 under Order 9 Rule 13 and section 151 CPC for recalling ex-parte decree dated 15.09.2012. Against the said application, the plaintiff-respondent has also filed an objection on 04.02.2016 and finally, the aforesaid application was allowed by Civil Judge, Senior Division/ACJM II Ballia vide order dated 23.02.2016 with a cost of Rs. 500/-. Aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff-respondent had also preferred the Revision before the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Ballia which was numbered as Revision no.29/2016 (Om Prakash Tiwari and others v. Sunil Kumar Tiwari) and the same has been allowed by the Revisional Court on 03.10.2016 and aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 227 Constitution of India. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent precisely submits that the entire decree was ex parte and at no point of time, he has any knowledge about the same and after receiving the aforesaid decree, he has proceeded to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and section 151 CPC which was also allowed by the Trial Court and the said decree was recalled with the cost of Rs. 500/- vide order dated 15.09.2012 and as such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. Thereafter the respondent-plaintiff has also filed revision, which was arbitrarily allowed by the Revisional Court on 03.10.2016 except the fact that the Trial Court has recalled the said decree after appreciating each and every aspect of the matter and the said decree was passed ex-parte to the petitioner and under the present facts and circumstances, the said order cannot sustain and this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Shri Sudhanshu Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff submits that the aforementioned judgment/decree dated 15.09.2012 was never been ex-parte whereas the petitioner-defendant was substituted in the said proceeding through his Advocate. He further apprised to the Court that the alleged recall application dated 19.09.2015 under Order 9 rule 13 read with section 151 CPC was also filed without any application for delay condonation and as such, the Court below has erred in law by allowing the recall application and in this backdrop, the Revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision and there is no infirmity in the same and the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. 5. The Court has the occasion to peruse the record in question and this is an admitted situation that the grand father of petitioner-defendant was contesting the aforesaid suit proceeding and father of petitioner has also been substituted therein. The petitioner himself was substituted in the said proceedings after demise of his father and he has also filed the counter claim and as such, it cannot be presumed that at no point of time, the petitioner has no knowledge regarding the said suit proceeding. The petitioner himself was substituted in the said proceedings after demise of his father and he has also filed the counter claim and as such, it cannot be presumed that at no point of time, the petitioner has no knowledge regarding the said suit proceeding. This much is also admitted situation that the petitioner has proceeded to file recall application without any explanation/application for delay and the same has been entertained by the Trial Court and subsequently the Revisional Court, in its turn, has rightly proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 23.02.2016. 6. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority. 7. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 8. In D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee AIR 1953 SC 58 Hon'ble Supreme Court said: "Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere." 9. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 : "This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193 , to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors". 10. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction. Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 in which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. For this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." 11. The said view has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576 and the Apex Court had again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 12. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 12. A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 13. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 Hon'ble Apex Court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 14. It is well settled that power under Article 227 is of the judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts, howsoever erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached them. (See: Chandra Bhushan v. Beni Prasad & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 70 ; Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate and others. v. Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, (1999) 2 SCC 171 ; and Savita Chemical (P) Ltd. v. Dyes & Chemical Workers' Union and Another, (1999) 2 SCC 143 ). 15. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India and others v. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 ) 16. 15. Power under Article 227 of the Constitution is not in the nature of power of appellate authority enabling re-appreciation of evidence. It should not alter the conclusion reached by the Competent Statutory Authority merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. (See: Union of India and others v. Himmat Singh Chahar, (1999) 4 SCC 521 ) 16. In Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 82 , the Apex Court has held that there is no justification for the High Court to substitute its view for the opinion of the Authorities/Courts below as the same is not permissible in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 17. In Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri v. Bhaskar Balwant Aheer, AIR 2000 SC 931 , the Court said that jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not appealable but supervisory. Therefore, it cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by Courts below unless there is no evidence to support findings or the findings are totally perverse. 18. In Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245 , the Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to re-appreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere. 19. In Union of India v. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472 , the Apex Court observed that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below. 19. In Union of India v. Rajendra Prabhu, (2001) 4 SCC 472 , the Apex Court observed that the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot re-appreciate the evidence nor it can substitute its subjective opinion in place of the findings of Authorities below. Similar view has been reiterated in State of Maharashtra v. Milind and others, (2001) 1 SCC 4 ; Extrella Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 ; and Omeph Mathai and others. v. M. Abdul Khader, (2002) 1 SCC 319 . 20. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675 , it was held by the Apex Court that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 21. In Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 8 SCC 294 , the Apex Court said: "...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions." 22. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions." 22. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 , the Apex Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others v. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana v. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650. 23. In Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. and others v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432 , Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction. 24. In T.G.N. Kumar v. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772 , the Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. 25. In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others v. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244 , Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India v. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227. 26. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the revisional order, then there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order impugned. 27. With these, Writ Petition is dismissed.