ORDER : 1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner – original defendant against an order dated 30.10.2021 passed below Exh. 8 in Regular Execution Petition No. 53/2016 by the learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot. By the said application Exh. 8, the respondent – original plaintiff – judgment creditor had prayed for grant distress warrant subsequent to the judgment and order dated 18.03.2016, decree dated 31.03.2016, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 43/2013. 2. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Y. Jasani for the petitioner. 2.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner, with all vehemence at his command, submitted that the impugned order is not in consonance with the provisions of O.21 R.101 and 98 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted that as per Rule 98 of Order 21, the competent Court is empowered to pass the orders after adjudication and upon determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101. He submitted that the amount spent by the petitioner for maintaining the suit property was not adjudicated upon/determined at all. According, making such submissions, he urged that interference at the hands of this Court is required in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the averments made in the petition so also the material on record, it appears that the matter has chequered history. The respondent – plaintiff had filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 43/2013 before the competent civil Court at Rajkot for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner. The said suit came to be partly decreed in favour of the respondent – plaintiff by virtue of judgment and order dated 18.03.2016, decree dated 31.03.2016. Grieved by the same, the petitioner herein – original defendant moved the first appellant Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 32/2016 under Section 96 of the CPC. The said appeal came to be rejected by the judgment and order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the learned 11th Additional District Judge, Rajkot. The petitioner did not rest there and moved this Court with Second Appeal No. 214 of 2019 with Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 For Stay. The said appeal too, came to be rejected by an order dated 10.07.2019. The petitioner did not rest there and moved this Court with Second Appeal No. 214 of 2019 with Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 For Stay. The said appeal too, came to be rejected by an order dated 10.07.2019. Miffed litigant then approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 24224/2019, which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 18.10.2019. Now, the petitioner – defendant before this Court against an order issuing the distress warrant. Virtually, this is the second round of litigation. 3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon O.21 R.101 and 98 CPC, which read as under : “101.Question to be determined.—All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions. 98. Orders after adjudication.— (1) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2),— (a) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application; or (b) pass such other order as, in the circumstances of the case, it may deem fit. (2) Where, upon such determination, the Court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, or by any transferee, where such transfer was made during the pendency of the suit or execution proceeding, it shall direct that the applicant be put into possession of the property, and where the applicant is still resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession, the Court may also, at the instance of the applicant, order the judgment-debtor, or any person acting at his instigation or on his behalf, to be detained in the civil prison for a term which may extend to thirty days.” 3.2 In the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned trial Court, without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners to the above-referred application Exh. 8, has passed the impugned order. Nonetheless, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Judge has dealt with and observed that it appears that the defendant – petitioner herein, has not handed over the actual, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property despite order passed in favour of the plaintiff / judgment creditor. It is further observed that the defendant, as averred in his objections, appears to have neither implement the decree nor acted as such. Further, a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that the learned Court below committed no error in passing the impugned order, more particularly, when the petitioners went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and did not succeed. 3.3 At this juncture, it would not be out of place to mention that this petition is filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the scope for interference is very scant. The exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be with a view to keep the tribunals /Courts within the bounds of their authority, to ensure that law is followed by tribunals / Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and/or when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of 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 other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 3.4 The Apex Court in a recent decision in Puri Investments v. Young Friends and Co. and Others, MANU/SC/0290/2022 has observed as under: “13. There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. In our view, the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Considering. This is impermissible. The finding of the High Court that the appellate forum’s decision was perverse and the manner in which such finding was arrived at was itself perverse.” 3.5 Thus, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be given a shape of appeal in disguise. 4. In view of the above discussion and observations, the petition being bereft of any merits, is dismissed in limine.