ORDER : 1. This writ has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order dated 08.08.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 21 of 2018/Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2018 by the Subordinate Judge I, Ranchi whereby and whereunder an application for amendment of execution application was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 323 of 2013 was filed before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against the respondent-defendant namely J. Khan, Surinder Kumar Singh and Bankat Garodia. The Suit was decreed vide decree dated 06.08.2009. Thereafter vide order dated 30.06.2010, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure has transferred it before the District Court at Ranchi along with precept for attachment of the immovable properties, which has been registered as Execution Case No. 21 of 2010. 3. The decree, which has been sought to be executed for Rupees 14 Lakhs with a further direction that the defendants shall pay to the plaintiffs mesneprofit/damages@Rs.1,75,000/-per annum only till the date of return of the said machine and Rs.70,000/-only per month for retention of the two Tipeers from 2000-2003. Actual decree of the quantum thereof is different to be ascertained in a separate proceeding. 4. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXI Rule, 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of Execution Application. Since the same has been rejected by the order dated 08.08.2010, against which this writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Sabyasachin Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said order has been challenged on the ground that the trial court has treated precept as the decree and therefore, has made some observation in the order impugned by fixing liability upon the defendants, which is contrary to the terms of the decree and therefore, the said order is against the petitioner. He submits that the precepts cannot be said to be decreed rather the meaning of precepts is defined under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure question to be determined by Court executing decree where all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Hence, precept cannot said to be a decree without considering these aspects. same observation has been made in the impugned order. This Court has issued notice to the respondent as would be evident from the order dated 12.12.2018 and steps were taken for service of notice under registered covered under A/D as well as by the ordinary process. 6. Supplementary affidavit has been filed but as per the office note, notice has not been effected upon the respondents. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and legal issues more particularly regarding the maintainability of application under Order XXI, Rule 17 of the code of civil procedure and scope of Section 46 of C.P.C. It is not in dispute that Section 46 of the C.P.C provides as follows:- 46.Precepts-(1) Upon the application of the decree-holder the Court which passed the decree may, whenever it thinks fit, issue a precept to any other Court which would be competent to execute such decree to attach any property belonging to the judgment-debtor and specified in the precept. (2) The Court to which a precept is sent shall proceed to attach the property in the manner prescribed in regard to the attachment of property in execution of a decree: Provided that no attachment under a precept shall continue for more than two months unless the period of attachment is extended by an order of the Court which passed the decree or unless before the determination of such attachment the decree has been transferred to the Court by which the attachment has been made and the decree-holder has applied for an order for the sale of such property. Questions to be determined by Court executing decree 8. Questions to be determined by Court executing decree 8. It is evident from the provision as contained under Section 46 of the code of Civil Procedure that upon the application of the decree-holder the Court which pass the decree may, whenever it thinks fit issue a precept to any other court which would be competent to execute such decree to attach any property belonging to the judgment debtor and specified in the precept. The court to which a precept is sent shall proceed to attach the property in the manner prescribed in regard to the attachment of property in execution of a decree. Provided that no attachment under a precept shall continue for more than two months unless the period of attachment is extended by an order of the court which passed the decree or unless before the determination of such attachment the decree has been transferred to the court by which the attachment has been made and the decree holder has applied for an order for the sale of such property. 9. A precept is an order or direction given by one court to another requiring some act to be done. The Court to which the precept is shall proceed to attach the property in the manner prescribed in regard to the attachment of property in execution of decree. The Hon’ble Culcutta High Court by resorting the aforesaid provision has transmitted the decree within the jurisdiction of Ranchi for attachment of the immovable property since the same lies with the jurisdiction of District of Ranchi, the aforesaid execution proceeding has been registered as Execution Case No. 21 of 2018. 10. In view of the position of law so far as the jurisdiction of the Executing Court is concerned and precepts which is commandment issued by the Original Court, it is the executing court who has to the commandment by following the provision as has been laid down under Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is to be seen by the Executing Court to execute the decree as per the direction contained in the decree. 11. In view thereof, the amendment which has been sought for by the petitioner before the executing court by way of the application has rightly been rejected. 11. In view thereof, the amendment which has been sought for by the petitioner before the executing court by way of the application has rightly been rejected. It needs to refer herein the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India making reference to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has been pleased to laid down therein regarding the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. 10. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been; 1. An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or 2. gross abuse of jurisdiction; or 3. an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141 wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appealable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of its authority, in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 12. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of Execution Application to the effect for allowing the petitioner to modify the part of quantum as has been decreed by the original court. 13. It is evident from the application as contained under Annexure-9 the apart from the decreetal amount to the tune of Rs. 14 Lakhs, calculation has been made on the basis of order and decree, a sum of Rs. 65,74,166.75 and Rs.1,18,76,440.86 has been added by the said amount, which will come inclusive of Rs.14 Lakhs as 1,98,50,607.53, but the said application has been rejected. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the scope of provision of order XXI Rule 17 of the CPC and therefore it cannot be said that while holding the said application not maintainable by the trial court under the provision of Order XXI Rule 17 suffers from any infirmity. 15. So far as the finding related to change in nature and correction of the decree there is no dispute about the position of law that executing Court is supposed to execute the decree without deviating from the same in any way. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the certain observations has been made pertaining to execute the precepts as a decree, merely making an observation, an order passed by the trial court does not lost its effect and the legal position even accepting that what has been observed in the impugned order, precepts to be a decree, the position as has been stipulated under the provision of Section 46 of the CPC cannot be changed meaning thereby precepts cannot be a decree, rather the decree, which has been sought to be executed by the executing court by way of precepts i.e. commandment, by the original court will have to be executed by the executing court. 16. 16. So far as the other observations pertaining to attachment of property from the one or the other defendant, it is also not in dispute that the executing court is competent enough to execute the decree in its letters and spirit and it is up to the executing court to see from whom the property is to be attached. 17. In view thereof, in the entirety of facts and circumstances and on the basis of observations made hereinabove, as also scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order impugned, accordingly stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.