// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8203/2007 Chauthmal S/o Shri Ganga Sahay and Another Versus Bhikham Chand Joshi S/o Shri Shankar Lal and Others Date of Order ::: 17.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Dr. Prakash Chandra Jain, Counsel for petitioners Shri B.B. Ojha, Counsel for contesting respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri B.B. Ojha, Advocate, appears for contesting respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of ACM, Lalsot, District Dausa, under Sections 88, 89, 188 and 92A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 along-with an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed. Thereafter the revision petition preferred before the Revenue Board was also dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners have lost in all the three courts. // 2 // I have examined the impugned orders passed by all the three courts below and, after considering the reasonings assigned by the courts below in the light of submissions made on behalf of the parties, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders so as to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte – AIR 1975 SC 1297, held that the High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with finding 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim – AIR 1984 SC 38 , held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//