1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8658/2008 {Shri Chander Singh Versus Shri Amra & Others} Date of Order :: 29th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Veyankatesh Garg for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement and during the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission from the trial court to allow them to lead secondary evidence in respect of the agreement. The trial court came to a conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to lead secondary evidence and consequently allowed the application vide order dated 2nd August, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendant. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after 2 considering the same, I find that the reasons assigned by the trial court appears to be perfectly justified. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Versus Laxmibai R. Tarte and another {AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297} held that the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Versus Mohd. Mustaqim {AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38} held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High 3 Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK