IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2006 SMT. SHARAYU ARMANDO PEREIRA, ....Petitioner THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY GAURISH PEREIRA, PANAJI GOA. Versus VISHNU YESHWANT SAWANT AND ANR., ....Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- V.C. DAGA, J. Date:- 23rd August, 2006 P.C.: Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Perused petition. 2. In the submission of the petitioner, the basic evidence has not been considered by the lower appellate Court, and, therefore, this is a fit case to exercise writ jurisdiction so as to interfere with the impugned order. Reliance is placed by him on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dattatraya Kaluram Jadhav v. Narayandas Badridas Rathi and another reported in A.I.R. 1974 Bombay, 189 to contend that if basic evidence is ignored or not considered by the court, it will be an error aparent on the face of record. 3. The submission made is misconceived. The court below did not exclude any evidence from consideration. On the contrary the same has been appreciated by the Court below and upon appreciation thereof, the same was discarded by the lower appellate Court. However, the lower appellate Court has accepted one document which was sufficient to saddle the liability on respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.3000/-. No fault can be found with the view taken and approach adopted by the Court below. 4. The Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or a tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. 5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the submission advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petition is without any substance. In the result, same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. V.C. DAGA, J. sl.