[1]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16425/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16425/2010 RAMESHWAR & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE: 15.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. N.L. Agrawal, for the petitioners. **** Heard the learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Plaintiff/petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the trial Court on an application filed by petitioners under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC. 3. The trial Court while dismissing the application, in para 7 of the impugned order has observed that the plaintiffs have pleaded that there is public way towards Northern side of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.1966/2065 and necessary correction/change has been made in the revenue record also. This fact has been mentioned in the plaint. [2]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16425/2010 The trial Court has further observed that when there is pleading of the plaintiffs in this regard, then they can obtain certified copy of record and file before the Court. In these circumstances, the application filed by the plaintiffs cannot be allowed. 4. The reasons assigned by the trial Court appear to be absolutely legal and justified and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. Further, there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297), held 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 [3]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16425/2010 of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. 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. 7. 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. /KKC/ [4]SB CIVIL WRIT PET.NO.16425/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO.8811/2010 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16425/2010 RAMESHWAR & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE: 15.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. N.L. Agrawal, for the petitioners. **** Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, this stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/