JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 53 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg. Suit was instituted for an injunction restraining the first respondent herein from trespassing over the plaint schedule property. In the suit, first respondent defendant filed an application for issue of commission. Commissioner visited the property and submitted a report on 22-3-1995. 2. Dissatisfied with the commission report, petitioner herein filed an application under O.26 R.10 C.P.C. to remit the commissioner's report and plan. Complaint of the petitioner was that the Commission did not measure the entire property of the defendant and had shown a portion of the suit property as part of defendant's property. It was alleged that the Commissioner went wrong in reporting that there was a clear stone path aged about 10 to 15 years to demarcate the suit property on the western side. Commissioner also did not assess the value of trees. Fist respondent herein filed objections to the petition denying all averments. It was stated there was no valid ground for remitting the commissioner's report and plan. 3. Trial court considered the question as to whether there are sufficient grounds for remitting the commissioner's report and plan. Trial court perused the report and plan filed by the Commissioner and found that Commissioner had measured the suit properties in accordance with the physical boundaries and had properly identified the same. Trial court found that the commissioner had reported that the boundaries in the document tallied with the existing boundaries. After considering the entire matter, trial court came to the conclusion that there was no justification in interfering with the report and plan. Accordingly petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Main contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that trial court has committed a grave error in not allowing the petition. According to him, order of the trial court is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. 5. I heard counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Petitioner has approached this court invoking Art.227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to remit the commissioner's report and plan. Petitioner has submitted an application before the trial court under O.26 R.10 C.P.C. and S.151. Petitioner has approached this court invoking Art.227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the trial court refusing to remit the commissioner's report and plan. Petitioner has submitted an application before the trial court under O.26 R.10 C.P.C. and S.151. O.26 R.10 reads as follows: "R. 10. Procedure of Commissioner:- (1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing in writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court. Report and depositions to be evidence in suit. Commissioner may be examined in person. (2) The report of the commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the court, or with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to by him, or mentioned, in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. (3) Where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the commissioner it may direct such further inquiry as it shall think fit." As per O.26 R.10(2), report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be the evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. The court, or with the permission of the court, any of the parties to the suit, may examine the commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to by him in the report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. As per R.10(3), where the court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit. 6. As per R.10(3), where the court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it shall think fit. 6. When a petition is filed by any of the parties to the suit seeking to set aside the Commissioner's report, or seeking to remit the Commissioner's report and plan, it is always open to the trial court to consider the said application and where the court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further inquiry to be made as it thinks fit. Under O.26 R.10(3) trial court has got a discretion to order a fresh commission or not. However, the court is not bound to do so in every case where the result of the local investigation is found to be unsatisfactory. Trial Court can decide the case on the evidence. But where the trial court is dissatisfied with the whole proceedings of the Commissioner that it thinks it better to discard the whole record and start afresh, it may do so. Where the court is of opinion, on considering the objections of the parties, if any, that the commissioner has so misconceived his duties as to render his report valueless, it may wipe out and supersede the first report by a specific order to that effect, and may issue a fresh commission. So also where the parties agree to the appointment of the second commissioner and abide by his report they cannot turn round and say that his report is not evidence under the terms of sub-r.(2). 7. The acceptance of commission report does not however mean parties are precluded from challenging the evidence of the commissioner or assailing the report by cross examination of the commissioner or adducing any other evidence to countermand the effect of the report. Under O.26 R.10(2) report of the Commissioner together with the evidence, if any recorded by him is legal evidence in the suit. However, the parties are entitled to take objection to the report of the Commissioner and substantiate the same by examining the commissioner or other witnesses. Under O.26 R.10(2) report of the Commissioner together with the evidence, if any recorded by him is legal evidence in the suit. However, the parties are entitled to take objection to the report of the Commissioner and substantiate the same by examining the commissioner or other witnesses. Rejection of objections to the commissioner's report does not preclude the court at a later stage either suo motu or at the instance of any of the parties from examining the commissioner nor from considering the report in the light of evidence on record. A commissioner's report is only evidence in the case. It is in no way binding on the court. The court has full power to arrive at its own conclusion even at variance with the report. In fact, the report ought not to be made the sole basis and foundation for the judgment in disregard of other evidence in the case. 8. Question as to whether commissioner's report is to be remitted or not, or question as to whether second commission is to be issued or not are all matters within the discretion of the trial court. When a civil court on the basis of available evidence and after hearing the objections of either party comes to the conclusion that there is no justification in remitting the commissioner's report and plan, the question that arise: for consideration is as to whether such an order can be attached under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Power of superintendence being extraordinary in nature, has to be exercised most sparingly and only in rare cases. High Court cannot on the guise of exercising it jurisdiction under Art.227 convert itself into a court of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. High Court also cannot while exercising jurisdiction under Art.227 interfere with the findings of fact re corded by the subordinate court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate, court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. High Court also cannot while exercising jurisdiction under Art.227 interfere with the findings of fact re corded by the subordinate court or tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate, court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. High Court may refuse to interfere under Art.227 unless there is grave miscarriage of justice As held by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Yunus v. Mohi, Mustaqum, AIR1984 SC 38, supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art.227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal function within the limits of its authority and not to correct 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. A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227. In exercising the jurisdiction under Art.227 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. Only in cases the order passed by the trial court is perverse, or that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction, or manifest injustice of grave nature has been committed or the court transgressed its limitation, High Court need interfere under Art.227 of the Constitution. 10. Question as to whether commissioner has correctly identified the property and the question as to whether a second commission is to be issued are all matters to be decided by the trial court on the basis of available materials and also on the basis of objections filed by the parties. Trial court would be in a better position to look into the report of the commissioner as well as the plan and other attendant circumstances, including objections raised by parties. When a civil court considers those matters, and comes to the conclusion that there is no necessity for remitting the commissioner's report and plan, or there is no necessity for issuing a second commission, this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution cannot re-weigh the evidence. After all, the commission report is only a piece of evidence, and the trial court at a later stage of the proceedings may reject the same. After all, the commission report is only a piece of evidence, and the trial court at a later stage of the proceedings may reject the same. Statute has also given ample safeguards under O.26 R.10(2) to allow the parties to file objections to the commissioner's report and allow the parties to examine the commissioner, and it is possible for the parties to bring in evidence to disprove commissioner's report. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that there is no justification in interfering with the order under Art.227 of the Constitution. In the instant case trial court has gone into the objections raised by parties. Trial court considered the commissioner's report and plan, and came to the conclusion that there was no justification in remitting the commissioner's report and plan. I am of the view that no manifest injustice has been meted out to the petitioner or that court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Even in cases where there is error or law apparent on the face of the record, this Court need not interfere under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the said circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.