1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1249/2007 {Shyam Sundar Bhatra & Others Versus Hanuman Sahai & Others} Date of Order :: 29th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the petitioners BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 16th March, 2000. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant-petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by first appellate court vide order dated 12th September, 2000. Thereafter a revision petition was preferred under section 115 CPC but the same was also dismissed as not maintainable by this Court vide order dated 5th August, 2003. Thereafter with a delay of about three years and six months, the present writ petition was preferred by defendants. 2 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for allowing the application for temporary injunction. There is concurrent finding in respect of prima-facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience by both the courts below. Apart from above, no explanation has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioners for not filing the writ petition from 5th August, 2003 till 20th February, 2007 i.e. about three years and six months. 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 3 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 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 on the ground of latches as well as merits also. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK