Honble SHARMA, J.–The purpose behind Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to provide the means to an aggrieved party to obtain rectification of a non-appealable order in exceptional circumstances. In order to maintain a petition for revision there must be an error relating to jurisdiction committed by the lower court either by way of assumption of jurisdiction which it does not have, or failureto exercise jurisdiction which it has, or by exercising its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court cannot, in the exercise of its revisional powers, attack finding of fact of the subordinate court or substitute its own appreciation of evidence for that of the primary court. (2). In the case on hand the defendant petitioner was assailed the validity ofthe decree and judgment dated August 29, 1995 passed in a suit for possession under the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted suit for possession stating in the plaint that he was a tenant in one room of the Haveli Bhura Darji and was dispossessed forcibly by the defendant petitioner on March 11, 1975. The defendant petitioner denied the allegations. As many as seven issues were framed out of the pleadings of the parties. The plaintiff examined six witnesses whereas the defendant produced eight witnesses. The learned trial court after appreciating the statements of the witnesses decreed the suit. (3). After giving my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival conten-tions and after perusing the record I am of the view that no jurisdictional error was committed by the learned trial court while passing the decree and judgment impugned and if the decree is allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice. Statement of plaintiff Surendra Mohan P.W.1 was supported by FIR (Ex.P.6) chargesheet (Ex.P.7) and judgment of criminal court (Ex.P.8) whereby the defen-dant petitioner was charged having forcibly entered the disputed property and was convicted under Section 156 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- though he was acquitted by the appellate court in appeal on technical grounds but the trial Court after scanning the testimony of the other witnesses as well as documents which include rent deed andreceipts observed that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed on March 11, 1975 from the disputed premises. (4). 100/- though he was acquitted by the appellate court in appeal on technical grounds but the trial Court after scanning the testimony of the other witnesses as well as documents which include rent deed andreceipts observed that the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed on March 11, 1975 from the disputed premises. (4). Budh Narain (PW.6) has proved the rent deed as well as the rent receipts issued by him in favour of the plaintiff in respect of disputed premises. He was mortgagee of the said property and rented it to the plaintiff as back as in 1972. Histestimony could not be shattered in the cross examination. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that material documents were not considered by the trial court, cannot be accepted as while deciding issues No.1 and 4 the objection raised under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC were considered by the learned court below at page six of the judgment, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of fact arrivedat by the court below. (5). Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. Costs easy.