PUSHPA SURANA Vs. PANDIT ROOP NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit of eviction, provisional rent was determined by the trial court vide order dated 31. 10. 2002 which was further affirmed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 23. 4. 2003. Since regularly revision has been barred under amended provisions of Section 115 C. P. C. , the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Courts below as referred above.

(2.) THE supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court 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 in Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review of re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court of tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision as has also been held by Supreme Court in a recent judgment in case of Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another (1 ).