1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7472/2007 {Bhushan Kalra Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 4th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Anil Khanna for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed a suit in the trial court alongwith an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by him but without success. Hence, both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in respect of prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury against the plaintiff- petitioner and in favour of the defendant- respondents. 3. I have examined the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below for refusing to pass any interim injunction 2 order in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and after considering the same, I find that the reasons assigned by both the courts below are perfectly justified and they do not call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 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 3 Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 6. In view of above, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (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. 743/2007 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7472/2007 {Bhushan Kalra Versus The State of Rajasthan & Others} Date of Order :: 4th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Anil Khanna for the petitioner 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