B.P. Beri, C.J.
1. This is a special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated July 16. 1971, dismissing the petitioner's application under Article 227 of the Constitution, of India. The circumstances leading to the present appeal are somewhat unusual and deserve recall for appreciating the contentions raised before us. Petitioners instituted a civil suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,750/- before the District Judge, Bhilwara. The basis of the suit was a document which the petitioner chose to call a 'chitti' but we prefer to call it 'the document'. The defendants objected to the admissibility of the document on the ground that it was not duly stamped. An issue was struck on this point and the learned District Judge relying on a decision of this Court Chauthmal v. State of Rajasthan 1967 Raj LW 446= (AIR 1967 Raj 179), held that the document was inadmissible. The plaintiff felt aggrieved and preferred an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to this Court which was dismissed by Chhangani J. by his order dated February 16. 1971, on the ground that a revisional application was not maintainable in view of a Full Bench decision of this Court. The petitioner then turned his attention to Article 227 of the Constitution of India and presented a petition before a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that the judgment of the learned District Judge deciding issue No. 8 on 15-3-1969 was erroneous and should be quashed in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner failed to persuade the learned Single Judge and he dismissed the petition and therefore, the petitioner is before us.
2. Mr. S.N. Bhargava appearing in support of the appeal has argued that this Court has in Madhusudhan v. Shyam Dass AIR 1952 Raj 3 and Kapoorchand Sanghi v. Narain Lal 1962 Raj L. W. 188 had interfered in the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the principles laid down in Surendra Nath v. Stephen Court Ltd. AIR 1966 SC 1361 and State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji AIR 1968 SC 1481 amply justify the exercise of that power. He also invited our attention to Ram Chander v. Kidar Nath. AIR 1954 Punj 135, and Josephy Santa v. Ambico Industries. AIR 1969 Bom 49.
3. Mr. M.M. Singhvi relying on S. R. Abhyankar v. K. D. Bapat (1969) 2 SCC 74 = (AIR 1970 SC 1) has urged that the dismissal of the petition under Article 227 by the learned Single Judge was proper because the petitioner had already chosen to exercise and exhaust the remedy envisaged under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and could not now seek the assistance of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution because it raises the possibility of a conflict of decisions.
4. The power conferred by the Constitution on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is in the nature of a supervisory jurisdiction intended to keep the subordinate Tribunals well within their proper bounds. And as such the jurisdiction has to be exercised as our High Court has said in Madhu Sudan's case AIR 1952 Raj 3 only where there is a grave dereliction of duty for which no other remedy is available. In the case before us the petitioner chose to elect his remedy under Section 115 of the Court of Civil Procedure and having failed therein he now seeks to invoke the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The principle enunciated in S.B. Abhyankar's case (1969) 2 SCC 74 = (AIR 1970 SC 1) by the Supreme Court directly applies to such a situation. In para 8 of the judgment the Supreme Court observes--
'If there are two modes of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court and one of those modes has been chosen and exhausted it would not be a proper and Sound exercise of discretion to grant relief in the other set of proceedings in respect of the same order of the Subordinate Court. The refusal to grant relief in such circumstances would be in consonance with the anxiety of the court to prevent abuse of process as also to respect and accord finality of its own decision.'
We are persuaded by the same reasons to reject this appeal without saving anything more as the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in the circumstances in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 115. C. P. C. on 16-12-1971 became final and the petitioner having exhausted his remedy thereunder cannot be permitted to pray for assistance under Article 227 of the Constitution. The possibility of a conflict of decision cannot altogether be ruled out.
5. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.