JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P-4 order and the additional direction made therein on 3rd September 1992 by the Principal Sub Judge, North Paravoor (second respondent). 2. Contention of the petitioner is that it has become virtually impossible for him to comply with Ext, P-4 order in I. A. 3292 of 1992 in O. S- 449 of 1992 of the Sub Court, North Paravoor in view of the diametrically opposite order of the Munsiff in I- A. 2122 of 1992 in O. S.672 of 1992 of the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. In I. A. 2122 of 1992 in O. S. 672 of 1992 Munsiff, Aluva granted in junction in favour of the petitioner who is the plaintiff in O. S.672 of 1992. O. S. 449 of 1992 was filed by the first respondent as plaintiff- In that Suit, Sub Judge granted interim injunction restraining the writ petitioner from performing or discharging the duties as a Presbyter in the diocese or as Vicar of St. John the Baptist Church at Alwaye. That order was passed on 20th August 1992 when the injunction application was moved. On 29th August 1992 the Sub Judge on having come to understand that the writ petitioner has obtained order of injunction against the first respondent herein O. S.6,72 of 1992 from the Munsiff's Court, Aluva and having realised that both the orders cannot be complied with, allowed the first respondent! to conduct the services on 30th August 1992 in the Church. The order made it clear that in case if due to any reason the first respondent is unable to attend the services writ petitioner can conduct the services on 30th August 1992. The interlocutory application was posted to 3rd September 1992. On 3rd September 1992 after hearing the counsel for the first respondent and, the writ petitioner, the Sub Judge directed the writ petitioner not to go to the Altar in priestly dress while the services are being conducted by the first respondent. 3. The question that arises for consideration is whether apparently conflicting orders passed by ' civil courts would enable the petitioner to approach this Court under Art.226 or Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because two conflicting orders are passed by the two Courts, petitioner cannot approach the High Court either under Art.226 or Art.227 of the Constitution. 3. The question that arises for consideration is whether apparently conflicting orders passed by ' civil courts would enable the petitioner to approach this Court under Art.226 or Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Merely because two conflicting orders are passed by the two Courts, petitioner cannot approach the High Court either under Art.226 or Art.227 of the Constitution. The remedy, open to him is either by filing objection to the injunction application or filing appeal before the concerned Court. The writ petitioner could have very well raised his contentions before the Sub Court which has issued injunction order against him or he could have filed appeal against the order. In this -context it is useful to refer to Bhaskaran v. Ambika 1977 KLT 476 , where this Court held that the order of injunction whether interim or final is an order falling within R.1 or 2 of O.39 and therefore appealable under O.43 R.1(r). Equally it would be possible for the petitioner to file petition before the District Court under S.24 of the C.P.C. to transfer the case pending before the Munsiff's Court to Sub Court so that the injunction applications in both the Courts could be disposed of by the same Court. That would have necessarily avoided any conflict of decisions. Having not done so, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the extraordinary powers under S.226 of the Constitution. The prayer in the petition is to set aside Ext. P-4 order and the additional direction made therein on 3rd September 1992. The settled legal position is that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to a civil Court. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kathir Pareed v. Special Deputy Collector and Others, 1973 KLT 996 , makes it clear that the judgment or order of a civil Court cannot be interfered with - or quashed under Art.226. As the writ of certiorari cannot be issued in respect of Ext. P-4 order passed by the Sub Judge the Original Petition is ill- conceived. 4. Art.227 also cannot be invoked in this case. Jurisdiction under Art.227 is an extraordinary one. This can be exercised only sparingly. If it is used in all and sundry cases, it would amount to total disregard of the appellate jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Appellate jurisdiction of. 4. Art.227 also cannot be invoked in this case. Jurisdiction under Art.227 is an extraordinary one. This can be exercised only sparingly. If it is used in all and sundry cases, it would amount to total disregard of the appellate jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Appellate jurisdiction of. a matter decided by a civil Court is not conferred on the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Even if the decision of the civil Court is wrong, a party cannot approach the High Court on the ground that it has supervisory jurisdiction over the civil Court and so it, has necessary power to interfere with the order of the civil Court. As the High Court cannot act as an appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence or other circumstances emerging from the case, it would not be possible for this Court to affirm the finding of the civil Court or disagree with it on analysis of the factual data. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 is confined to see whether the inferior Court or Tribunal functioned within the limits of its authority. This Court cannot correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In Mohammed Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqin AIR 1984 SC 38 , the Supreme Court made the position clear "A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art.227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority', and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art.227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." 5. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the O. P. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.