1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13700/2009 Gokul Chand v/s Prabhu Dayal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: NOVEMBER 11, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri S.C. Gupta, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant in the trial court in respect of property in dispute along with an application for temporary injunction. The trial court vide its order dated 21.7.2004 rejected the application for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred, but the same was also dismissed by the first appellate court vide order dated 12.8.2009. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the 2 courts below committed an illegality in rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction, particularly; from the report of Commissioner itself, it is proved that the plaintiff was in possession of the property in dispute or the defendants were not in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. He, therefore, contended that both the orders passed by both the courts below, are liable to be quashed and set aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reasons assigned by the both the courts below for rejecting the petitioner's application for temporary injunction. Both the courts below have held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury, both have also been decided against the plaintiff. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding about the prima facie case in favour of defendants, which cannot be interfered with by this court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the 3 impugned orders so as to interfere with the same. In Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and Another – AIR 1975 SC 1297, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held that the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being extraordinary is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. This power, as in the case of certiorari jurisdiction, cannot be invoked to correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal. 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 of the Constitution of India, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal 4 functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by re- appreciating evidence. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain), J. chauhan/