1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10619/2007 {Smt. Usha Jain Versus Kailash Chand Chhabra & Another} Date of Order :: 18th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.K. Jain for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Garg for the respondent no.1 BY THE COURT: The application filed by the petitioner for early listing of the writ petition is allowed. 2. On the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the case is taken up for hearing. 3. Admit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 4th August, 2007 passed by the trial court rejecting his application dated 3rd May, 2007 to allow her to file the affidavits in respect of facts mentioned in the application. The application was contested by the respondent. The learned trial court after considering the 2 submissions of both the parties rejected the application. 6. I have examined the impugned order in the light of submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and after considering the same, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. 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. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. 3 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. 9. In view of 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. DK 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.1335/2007 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10619/2007 {Smt. Usha Jain Versus Kailash Chand Chhabra & Another} Date of Order :: 18th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. S.K. Jain for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Garg for the respondent no.1 BY THE COURT: Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK