JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, HP in Rent Case No.12 of 2015, titled Parmod Gautam (deceased) through LRs. Vs. Mohd. Yakub & Anr. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 3. The rent petition, in the case at hand, had been filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents i.e. one Sh. Parmod Gautam. The said petition had been filed on 26.10.2015. During the pendency of the rent petition, Parmod Gautam had died. His LRs i.e. present respondents are ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 29.10.2022. 4. During the pendency of the rent petition, an objection was taken qua the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents that he (Parmod Gautam) is not the landlord. After the death of Parmod Gautam, an application had been filed for taking the same objection qua the legal heirs of deceased-Parmod Gautam. 5. The said application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court has correctly observed that the objection taken qua the original landlord (Parmod Gautam) holds good for his legal heirs also and hence, there is no need to incorporate a plea qua the LRs not being landlords by filing a fresh application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 6. Other than the aforesaid, the trial Court has correctly observed that the filing of the application is merely to prolong the litigation. 7. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 8. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524 , it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181 , it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 9. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has restrictive and limited jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 10. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP on 29.11.2024 and there is no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out, in the case at hand. 11. In view of the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit and so also the pending application(s), if any.