JUDGMENT : By means of writ petition no. 687 of 2018 (M/S) filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2017, passed by the Chairman, Revenue Council, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in Second Appeal no. 41/2015-16, Richard Wheeler Vs State of Uttarakhand & others as well as Second Appeal no. 163 / 2015-16, Aman Deep Singh & others Vs Richard Wheeler & others. 2. Writ petition no. 971 of 2018 (M/S) has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment and order dated 26.03.2018, passed by the Chairman, Revenue Council, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in Revision no. 166/2017-18, Aman Deep Singh & another Vs State of Uttarakhand & others. A further prayer has been made to declare respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to be the owner of property in question on the basis of sale deed dated 19.01.2009 and further to declare the said sale deed dated 19.01.2009 as an invalid document. 3. Facts leading to filing of aforementioned writ petitions are that the property in question consists of two old bungalows along with outhouses as well as 201 Nali and 10 Muthi land, being Khata Khatuni no. 01, situated in Village Papersali, Patti Khas Parja, District Almora and this property is divided on the spot into two estates known as ‘Deodar Estate’ and “Epworth Estate’. The present dispute relates to a part of Epworth Estate only. Both the estates, including the disputed property, are recorded in the revenue record in the name of American Methodist Mission, Almora (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mission’) since 1902, but actually the physical possession of these two estates is not with the Mission. One portion of Epworth Estate is in physical possession of Puran Singh and the petitioner and the rest area is in physical possession of Richard Wheeler. Initially the property in question was in the exclusive possession of one Australian national, who continued in possession till 1947 and while leaving after independence he settled the property with two persons namely Mr. Dhawan and Mr. Keshar Singh (father of Puran Singh). It is averred that the petitioner came in possession of a part of bungalow in question and land appurtenant thereto about 24 years back through one Mr. Dhawan. Dhawan and Mr. Keshar Singh (father of Puran Singh). It is averred that the petitioner came in possession of a part of bungalow in question and land appurtenant thereto about 24 years back through one Mr. Dhawan. It is stated that in the year 1992, Puran Singh, claiming himself to be the legal owner of the said bungalow started creating nuisance, and to avoid any further nuisance petitioner paid substantial amount to him and started living in said bungalow. It is alleged that in the year 2003, Methodist Church of India, whose name is not recorded in the revenue records, filed civil suit, being Civil Suit no. 64 of 2003, American Methodist Church & others Vs Puran Singh, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora, seeking prohibitory injunction against the defendant Puran Singh restraining him from interfering with the possession and use of property in question by the plaintiffs. A prayer for injunction and no eviction decree was sought. 4. It is further alleged that during the pendency of aforesaid original suit, Methodist Church of India fraudulently sold the entire property comprising Deodar Estate and Epworth Estate, without possession to respondent nos. 1 and 2 through registered sale deed dated 19.01.2009. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 in the original suit by the trial court. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and a decree for eviction was also sought in the suit. Thereafter, Puran Singh contested said proceedings and the civil suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2012 and an eviction decree was passed against Puran Singh and in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid judgment and decree passed against Puran Singh, he filed a recall application under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC before the trial court for recalling the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2012. The recall application was registered as Misc. Application no. nil of 2012. Learned court below rejected the recall application vide order dated 17.05.2012. 5. Feeling aggrieved, Appeal from Order no. 415 of 2012, Awdhesh Kumar Verma Vs American Methodist Mission & others, was filed by the petitioner before this Court. The same was dismissed on 17.04.2013. In the meantime, Puran Singh preferred F.A. no. Application no. nil of 2012. Learned court below rejected the recall application vide order dated 17.05.2012. 5. Feeling aggrieved, Appeal from Order no. 415 of 2012, Awdhesh Kumar Verma Vs American Methodist Mission & others, was filed by the petitioner before this Court. The same was dismissed on 17.04.2013. In the meantime, Puran Singh preferred F.A. no. 60 of 2012, Puran Singh Vs American Methodist Mission & others, against the eviction decree dated 16.04.2012 passed in O.S. no. 64 of 2003. Apart from filing A.O. no. 415 of 2012, petitioner also preferred a regular first appeal before this Court, which was summarily dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner preferred SLP (C) nos. 36208 of 2013 and 36209 of 2013. Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 27.02.2015, passed in SLP (C) no. 36208 of 2013, granted interim order of status quo in favour of the petitioner. Meanwhile, the appeal no. 60 of 2012, filed by Puran Singh, was decided finally by this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2015 and confirmed the eviction decree. Feeling aggrieved, Puran Singh preferred SLP (C) no. 6151 of 2015, Puran Singh Vs American Methodist Mission & others before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Said SLP was also tagged with the SLPs filed by the petitioner. Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 24.11.2015 directed the District Magistrate, Almora, who was impleaded a party in the SLP, to look into the matter whether the State Government has some interest in the property in question, or not? The District Magistrate forwarded his report to the State Government. On the basis of direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a revenue case no. 01/2015-16, State of Uttarakhand through Collector, Almora Vs Sri Amandeep Singh and others, was instituted before the court of learned Assistant Collector (I Class) Sadar Almora under Section 167 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951. Petitioner was impleaded as respondent no. 7 in said proceedings. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material brought on record, the Assistant Collector (I Class), Almora decided the case finally vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2017. The entire land in question was declared state land and the subsequent sale deed dated 19.01.2009, on the basis of which the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are claiming their title over the disputed property, was declared void and the land in question was vested with the State Government. 6. The entire land in question was declared state land and the subsequent sale deed dated 19.01.2009, on the basis of which the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are claiming their title over the disputed property, was declared void and the land in question was vested with the State Government. 6. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Apex Court proceeded further with the SLPs and finally decided the same vide judgment and order dated 04.12.2017. The judgment and order dated 04.12.2017 is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience : “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On 25th August 2017, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand states that proceedings pending before the State-Authorities will be concluded within a period of two months from today. It will be open to the parties to present their view points before the concerned authority in accordance with law. A copy of the final order be brought on record to this Court before the next date. List the matters on 4th December, 2017.” It has been brought to our notice that two orders have been passed. One, dated 30th July, 2017, by the Assistant Collector (Ist Class), Sadar, Almora and another dated 30th November, 2017 by the Revenue Council, Dehradun. In view of above two orders, no order is necessary on the special leave petitions and the contempt petition. Accordingly, the same stand disposed of. If any party is aggrieved by the above orders, the same may be challenged before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 7. It is averred that in view of the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court unless and until a final decision has been arrived at in the matters, the Executing Court cannot execute the execution decree dated 16.04.2012, in Execution Case no. 01 of 2015. It is further averred that on 11.12.2017, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed an application through affidavit for the purpose of execution of eviction decree dated 16.04.2012 before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora in execution case no. 01 of 2015. Another application dated 14.12.2017 was also moved for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of executing the eviction decree. The petitioner filed his objection under Section 47 of CPC and a stay application was also filed. Div.), Almora in execution case no. 01 of 2015. Another application dated 14.12.2017 was also moved for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of executing the eviction decree. The petitioner filed his objection under Section 47 of CPC and a stay application was also filed. The Executing Court has rejected the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of C.P.C. vide order dated 23.12.2017 on the ground that since the petitioner was not a party to the original suit hence his application is not maintainable. 8. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner moved a review application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC before Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora, in Misc. case no. 01 of 2018, Awdhesh Kumar Verma Vs American Methodist Mission & others. Said court after perusal of the record dismissed the review application vide order dated 08.03.2018. After the decision dated 04.12.2017, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid three SLPs, petitioner filed a civil suit no. 12 of 2017, Awdhesh Kumar Verma Vs Amandeep Singh & others, before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Almora seeking declaration and prohibitory injunction. Learned Civil Judge vide order dated 23.12.2017, refused to register the suit and the same was returned under Order 7 rule 10 of CPC. Against order dated 23.12.2017, petitioner preferred A.O. no. 21 of 2018 before this Court, which was admitted vide order dated 22.02.2018. 9. Meanwhile, Revenue Suit no. 54 / 2005-06, under Section 229B of the UPZA & LR Act, was preferred by Richard Wheeler against American Methodist Mission, seeking declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession in respect of total 201 Nali and 10 Mutthi land along with two bungalows. Later on subsequent purchasers i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2 were also added as defendants in said case, who were claiming their right over the property in question in said case. Aforesaid revenue suit was dismissed by learned Asstt. Collector (I Class), Almora and counter claim of the defendants was allowed vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2014. 10. Aggrieved against the same, Mr. Wheeler preferred two revenue appeals no. 31/2013-14/5/14-5 and 32/2013-14/4/14-15 under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act before learned Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. The said appeals were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2015 and counter claim of respondent nos. 1 and 2 was also rejected. 11. 10. Aggrieved against the same, Mr. Wheeler preferred two revenue appeals no. 31/2013-14/5/14-5 and 32/2013-14/4/14-15 under Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act before learned Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. The said appeals were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29.09.2015 and counter claim of respondent nos. 1 and 2 was also rejected. 11. Against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2016, Mr. Wheeler preferred a Second Appeal before the Chairman, Revenue Council, Uttarakhand being Second Appeal no. 41 of 2015-16, Richard Wheeler Vs State of Uttarakhand, through Collector Almora & others. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 also preferred two Second Appeals, being S.A. no. 163 / 2015-16 and S.A. no. 164 / 2015-16. The learned Chairman, Revenue Council, Uttarakhand vide common judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 dismissed Second Appeal no. 41 of 2015-16 and allowed the S.A. nos. 163 / 2015-16 & 164 / 2015-16, setting aside the order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Nainital and affirmed the judgment and order dated 06.01.2014, passed by the Assistant Collector, I Class, Almora. Hence, present writ petition. 12. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 5 / State. It has been stated in paragraph no. 4 that the original tenure holder was American Methodist Mission in respect of share measuring 201 Nali 10 Mutthi of land bearing khata no. 1 of the property in question. Later on the said property was recorded in the name of respondent nos. 1 and 2 as bhumidhar with transferable rights. The factum in respect of registered sale deed dated 19.01.2009 is admitted to the State. It is stated that in pursuance to an order dated 29.09.2015, passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital in Appeal no. 32/2013-14/04/2014-15 the Collector Almora, vide letter no. 4311/S.A.2015-16 dated 05.04.2015 directed the Asstt. Collector Ist Class, Almora to proceed further under Section 166/167 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to vest the disputed land in the State Government as there is clear violation of Section 152-A of the Act. The Assistant Collector thereafter proceeded with the matter and registered the case as Revenue Suit no. 01 of 2005, State Vs Amandeep Singh and others and after issuing notices to the respondents and having heard the matter on merit finally decided the revenue suit vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2017. Aggrieved against the same, respondent Richard Wheeler and the respondent nos. 01 of 2005, State Vs Amandeep Singh and others and after issuing notices to the respondents and having heard the matter on merit finally decided the revenue suit vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2017. Aggrieved against the same, respondent Richard Wheeler and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 preferred revision, whereby vide order dated 26.03.2018, learned Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand set aside the order dated 30.10.2017. 13. Respondent American Methodist Mission also filed its counter affidavit through its authorized signatory Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey denying most of the averments made in the writ petition. It has been stated that petitioner neither was a party before the revenue authorities nor has any locus as he is claiming his right through Puran Singh against whom the entire matter has already been finalized from the highest revenue authority. It is further stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is just a dilatory tactics to delay the administration of justice. It has been further stated that the petitioner was having full knowledge of pendency of revenue case no. 01/2015-16, but he never opted to appear before the revenue authorities by filing any impleadment application nor opted to appear before the Board of Revenue. It is also stated that the respondent American Methodist Mission was having all the rights to execute the sale deed and the petitioner never challenged the validity of sale deed before the competent court having jurisdiction. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that judgments impugned were passed without considering the documents available on record and even without reversing the finding passed by the First Appellate Authority, which is the last court of fact. He would further submit that the Second Appellate Authority was duty bound to reverse the findings of First Appellate Authority. It is contended that the Methodist Church of India was not the owner of the properties belonging to American Methodist Mission, therefore, it had no legal basis to execute the sale deed dated 19.01.2009 in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is further contended that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have no legal basis to claim their ownership over the suit property. It is argued that the seller of the property in question and the Mission are two separate entities and has nothing to do with each other. 1 and 2. It is further contended that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have no legal basis to claim their ownership over the suit property. It is argued that the seller of the property in question and the Mission are two separate entities and has nothing to do with each other. Thus, when said finding has categorically been dealt by the Additional Commissioner, Nainital in its order dated 29.09.2015, there was no occasion for the Chairman, Revenue Council in totally ignoring the said finding. 16. In the writ petitions filed by Puran Singh it is alleged that he inherited the right over the suit property on the basis of adverse possession as his father was the caretaker on behalf of American Methodist Mission. He also alleged that he is living in the outhouse of the one of the bungalow. Puran Singh has nowhere stated that he ever took any consideration from the petitioner in lieu of the suit property and inducted him in said property. Perusal of the record would reveal that Civil suit no. 28 of 1995 filed by Puran Singh was dismissed by the trial court on 27.08.2007. Civil Appeal no. 25 of 2007 preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2007 too was dismissed by the District Judge, Almora vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2008 holding that the Puran Singh had failed to show his claim over the suit property and the suit property belongs to the American Methodist Mission. Decree passed by the civil court in O.S. no. 28 of 1995, Puran Singh Vs State and another, whereby the suit filed by Puran Singh has attained finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. Similalry, the decree passed in O.S. no. 64 of 2003, American Methodist Mission Vs Puran Singh has also attained finality. Thus, it is evidently clear that the judgments and decrees passed by the civil court against Puran Singh have attained finality. Puran Singh, then opened another channel of litigation by filing revenue suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The suit filed by him has also been dismissed by the Revenue Council, Uttarakhand. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner is claiming his right over the suit property through Puran Singh against whom the matter has already finalized from the highest authority of revenue. The suit filed by him has also been dismissed by the Revenue Council, Uttarakhand. 17. Admittedly, the petitioner is claiming his right over the suit property through Puran Singh against whom the matter has already finalized from the highest authority of revenue. It is relevant to note here that Puran Singh is the son of late Keshar Singh, caretaker of American Methodist Mission, who executed the sale deed through Power of Attorney in favour of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Thus, a dummy person (petitioner herein) has been appointed by Puran Singh to create a new channel of litigation. It appears that the intention of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings by indulging in false and frivolous litigation and is using the same as dilatory tactics. Petitioner has not uttered even a single word as to how he has any interest over the suit property. The only averment made in both the writ petitions is that petitioner had invested rupees ten lakh for renovation of the property and had given some consideration to Puran Singh in lieu thereof, who has no right over the property as the real owner of the suit property is American Methodist Mission. In the opinion of this Court an investment for renovation does not give any right to the petitioner over the suit property. Petitioner is challenging the order impugned directly before the High Court despite the fact that he was not even the party before the court below. He made no efforts to get himself impleaded as party respondent before the court below and straightaway has challenged the order impugned before this Court. Petitioner has no locus in the matter. 18. It is surprising to note here that how the petitioner could seek interference of this Court to declare respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to be the owner of property in question, who in fact have purchased the suit property through registered sale deed. The suit property was never recorded in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The names of respondent nos. 1 and 2 are duly recorded in the revenue records in respect of the suit property as ‘bhumidhar with transferable rights’. The suit property was never recorded in the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The names of respondent nos. 1 and 2 are duly recorded in the revenue records in respect of the suit property as ‘bhumidhar with transferable rights’. Even if it be presumed for the sake of argument that petitioner came into occupation of some part of the suit property through Puran Singh, even then he cannot claim his possession over the same as the status of Puran Singh is merely that of a caretaker, as admitted by Puran Singh himself. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Behram Tejani & others Vs Azem Jagani, (2017) 2 SCC 759 has held that an occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession. Relevant paragraphs no. 12 and 12 are excerpted hereunder: “12. Rame Gowda Vs M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769 was a case in which two adjoining owners were claiming independent right of ownership in respect of a strip of land in between their holdings. That piece of land was in possession of the plaintiff and as such while dealing with the controversy, this Court held that a person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession. However, while dealing with the concept of "settled possession" it was observed in paragraph 9 as under: "9. ….The "settled possession" must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. The phrase "settled possession" does not carry any special charm or magic in it; nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in a straitjacket. An occupation of the property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual physical possession." 13. The matter was further elaborated in subsequent decision of this Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370 , as under: "97. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under: (1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Principles of law which emerge in this case are crystallized as under: (1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. (2) Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. (3) The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant. (4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or license agreement in his favour. (5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession." 20. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Ravinder Kaur Vs Ashok Kumar and another, (2003) 8 SCC 28, that the courts must be able to identify vexatious litigation. The Courts should be vigilant to see through diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree. It would be apposite to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph no. 22 hereunder: “22. All these facts apart, we notice that nowhere in the petition the respondents-tenants claim to be in possession of any shop other than shop no. 3 in regard to which they have suffered an eviction order. It is not their case that they are also in possession of some other property in regard to which there is no eviction order but the landlord is trying to take possession in these execution proceedings. We have specifically asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that apart from shop no. 3 belonging to the appellant are the respondents in possession of any part of property bearing no. 172/2 situated a Chowk Panjeer, Jalandhar. The learned counsel was not able to give any satisfactory reply to our question which would only mean that the respondents are not in possession of any other property other than shop no. 3 belonging to the appellant are the respondents in possession of any part of property bearing no. 172/2 situated a Chowk Panjeer, Jalandhar. The learned counsel was not able to give any satisfactory reply to our question which would only mean that the respondents are not in possession of any other property other than shop no. 3 leased out to them in the abovementioned property belonging to the appellant. That is also why they prayed for restoration of possession. Therefore, raising a dispute in regard to the description or identity of the suit schedule property or a dispute in regard to the boundary of the suit schedule property is only a bogey to delay the eviction by the abuse of the process of courts. Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtors to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. This type of errors on the part of the judicial forums only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.” 21. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the authorities below that American Methodist Mission is the owner of the suit property and respondent nos. 1 and 2 purchased the same through Methodist Church of India (formally known as Executive Board of Methodist Church in Southern Asia, popularly known as successor in interest of American Methodist Mission) through registered sale deed dated 19.01.2009. Unless the petitioner proves that the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse or based on no evidence such findings cannot be set aside by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 22. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shayam and another vs Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 has held as under: “26. The Bench in Surya Dev Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 also observed in para 25 of its judgment that distinction between Articles 226 and 227 stood almost obliterated. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Article 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed by the referring Bench in Para 32 quoted above. In para 24 of the said judgment distinction in the two articles has been noted. In view thereof, observation that scope of Article 226 and 227 was obliterated was not correct as rightly observed by the referring Bench in Para 32 quoted above. We make it clear that though despite the curtailment of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC by Act 46 of 1999, jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, it has been wrongly assumed in certain quarters that the said jurisdiction has been expanded. Scope of Article 227 has been explained in several decisions including Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 ; Ouseph Mathai vs. M. Abdul Khadir (2002) 1 SCC 319 ; Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 and Sameer Suresh Gupta vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal (2013) 9 SCC 374 . In Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), this Court observed: "64. However, this Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and also in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes. In some cases the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. 65. We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals writ court should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority. 66. We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed that has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court must follow the regime of law. 67. As a result of frequent interference by the Hon'ble High Court either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by the civil and criminal courts gets further impeded and thus causing serious problems in the administration of justice. This Court hopes and trusts that in exercising its power either under Article 226 or 227, the Hon'ble High Court will follow the time honoured principles discussed above. Those principles have been formulated by this Court for ends of justice and the High Courts as the highest courts of justice within their jurisdiction will adhere to them strictly." (emphasis supplied) 23. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shayam Vs Chhabi Nath (supra) considering the nine-Judge Bench judgment in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 , has held that the remedy under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India is not an appealable remedy and can be used only in a very exceptional cases when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned and where there is some perversity in the order passed by the court. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar’s case (supra) are excerpted hereunder: “62. But apart from this aspect of the matter, we think it would be inappropriate to allow the petitioners to raise the question about the jurisdiction of the High Court to pass the impugned order in proceedings under Article 32 which seek for the issue of a writ of certiorari to correct the said order. But apart from this aspect of the matter, we think it would be inappropriate to allow the petitioners to raise the question about the jurisdiction of the High Court to pass the impugned order in proceedings under Article 32 which seek for the issue of a writ of certiorari to correct the said order. It questions about the jurisdiction of superior Courts of plenary jurisdiction to pass orders like the impugned order are allowed to be canvassed in writ proceedings under Article 32, logically, it would be difficult to make a valid distinction between the orders passed by the High Courts inter partes, and those which are not inter partes in the sense that they bind strangers to the proceedings. Therefore, in our opinion having regard to the fact that the impugned order has been passed by a superior Court of Record in the exercise of its inherent powers, the question about the existence of the said jurisdiction as well as the validity or propriety of the order cannot be raised in writ proceedings taken out by the petitioners for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 32. 63. Whilst we are dealing with this aspect of the matter we may incidentally refer to the relevant observations made by Halsbury on this point. “In the case of judgments of inferior Courts of civil jurisdiction”, says Halsbury in the footnote, “it has been suggested that certiorari might be granted to quash them for want of jurisdiction [Kemp V. Balne (1844), 1 Dow. & L. 885, at p. 887], inasmuch as an error did not lie upon that ground. But there appears to be no reported case in which the judgment of an inferior Court of civil jurisdiction has been quashed on certiorari, either for want of jurisdiction or on any other ground.” The ultimate proposition is set out in the terms: “Certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior Courts of civil jurisdiction”. These observations would indicate that the England the judicial orders passed by civil Courts of plenary jurisdiction in or in relation to matters brought before them are not held to be amenable to the jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari.” 24. These observations would indicate that the England the judicial orders passed by civil Courts of plenary jurisdiction in or in relation to matters brought before them are not held to be amenable to the jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari.” 24. The powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. 25. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act like an appellate court. Unless the petitioner succeeds in convincing this Court in regard to the three ingredients as mentioned above necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court should be loath to exercise such jurisdiction to differ with the reasons and the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority or court of law. As has been held in the preceding paragraphs in this judgment, the petitioner has failed to show any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the judgments impugned. 26. In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I do not find any perversity and illegality in the impugned judgments. Both the writ petitions fails and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.