R. BHATTARCHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) -THE petitioner is sought to have explored remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 as the impugned order dated 13. 5. 97 passed by the Additional District Judge, Alipore, in C. R. No. 283 of 1992 is founded upon slippery foundation. ( 2 ) THE court rejected the admissibility of a solenama based on a petition, but subsequently made an exhibit which attributes to an uproaring in law. It constitutes a confusion worse confounded. The court, according to the learned counsel, was placed between the two horns for the decision earlier rendered which has harboured confusion and the order passed is devoid of law. The contribution of the learned counsel as succinctly made and understood by me is that the certified copy of a solenama of an earlier suit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1, in Title Suit No. 82 of 1992 could not be admitted into evidence and marked as an exhibit once rejected. ( 3 ) I have gone through the order impugned meticulously and I do not find any reason that the contention is apposite to invade the order complained of in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the courts are not clothed with jurisdiction to assume power under Article 227 to examine the propriety of an order passed by Tribunal or inferior court. But the court in appropriate circumstances may refuse to invoke power under Article 227 when the order complained of does not warrant such interference. However, the petitioner may say the certified copy of a solename could be admitted into evidence if it satisfies the condition under section 65 of the Evidence Act. When the evidence has been adduced about the loss and destruction of the record, the certified copy could be admitted into evidence otherwise section 65 could be a misnomer or section 65 of the Evidence Act will outlive its purpose. ( 4 ) THE meat of the matter about the jurisdictional error committed by the court is that when an earlier application on the self-same ground to make it an exhibit was rejected. The reconsideration of the same is extraneous to the provision of law. ( 4 ) THE meat of the matter about the jurisdictional error committed by the court is that when an earlier application on the self-same ground to make it an exhibit was rejected. The reconsideration of the same is extraneous to the provision of law. I am unable to persuade myself to agree to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as it is within the reach and power of the court to act in accordance with law, where mere technicalities cannot defeat the ends of justice. The combined reading of sections 65 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 affords an irresistible conclusion that the documents admitted into evidence and marked as an exhibit in the state of materials on record does not suffer from any illegality where the court should not be tortured by the technicalities. Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not a medicine to cure all disease. It's applicability is limited. The High Court under Article 227 could assume jurisdiction when the Tribunal or the inferior court made an erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction; refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law, apparent on the face of the record, as distinguished from a mere mistake of law or error of law relating to jurisdiction; violation of principle of natural justice; arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion and arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material. ( 5 ) HAVING given my due consideration to the controversy in issue, the case at hand does not come within any of the ingredients of Article 227 of the Constitution of India aforementioned. ( 6 ) IN the result, the application is disposed of with the above observations. Application disposed of.