1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9108/2008 {State of Rajasthan & Another Versus Daljeet Singh & Others} Date of Order :: 4th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for the petitioners BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction in respect of disputed shop, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 13th July, 2007. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant- petitioners preferred an appeal but without success. The learned trial court while considering a prima-facie case of the plaintiff has recorded a finding that plaintiff is in possession of the shop over the disputed land and his possession is old one. The finding of the trial court has been affirmed by the first appellate court, therefore, there is concurrent finding in respect of prima-facie case in 2 favour of the plaintiff. Both the courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding in respect of irreparable injury and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below for allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiff-respondent no.1 and after considering the same, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said orders so as to interfere with the same. 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 3 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 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