1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10542/2007 {Dr. Smt. Indra Gupta Versus Additional District & Sessions Judge & Others} Date of Order :: 1st September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred but without success. Hence, both the courts below have refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below for refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and after considering the same, I do not find any 2 illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said order so as to interfere with the same. 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 Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 6. In view of above, I do not find any 3 merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK