// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8528/2008 Smt. Jamuna Bai W/o Nathulal Versus Smt. Satyanarayani Bai D/o late Shri Fundi Lal and Others Date of Order ::: 04.09.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Deepak Pareek, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition, on behalf of the defendant is directed against the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2008, whereby his application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected. I have examined the impugned order passed by the trial court in the light of submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and, after considering the same, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal Vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte – AIR 1975 SC 1297, held that the High Court cannot, while // 2 // 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 in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//