PARIHAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 28. 8. 2002, passed by the trial court, by which, evidence of the petitioner has been closed and application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been rejected. THE regular revision petition filed by the petitioner against the above order has also been dismissed by this court vide order dated 30. 5. 2003 on the ground of not being maintainable in view of amended provisions of section 115 of the Code. Hence, the present writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or the 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 the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of "sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. " (1 ). Even otherwise, this court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, in such matters, has to be very cautious by entertaining the writ petition in such matters would frustrate the very purpose of amendment in section 115 of the Code. After having carefully gone through the order impugned, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no ground for any further interference of this court in the present matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. .;