JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the SBCWP No. 4201/2003 preferred by the appellant u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the interlocutory order dated 15.10.2000 was dismissed. 2. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court does not act as the appellate Court. Reference may be made to Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 255 : (2003) 3 SCC 524 wherein it was indicated in para 7 thus the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or 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 u/Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to High Court on a petition filed u/Art. 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 3. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., 2003(2) WLC (SC) Civil 355 : (2003) 6 SCC 675 the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the parameters in regard to exercising the powers u/Arts. 226 & 227 and held as under (Para 39) : "Though we have tried to lay down broad and principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction u/Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a strait jacket formula or rigid rules... The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restrained and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done. If any, would be set right and rights and... adjusted in appeal or revision preferred of the conclusion of the proceedings. If any, would be set right and rights and... adjusted in appeal or revision preferred of the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where "a stitch in time would save nine'", At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge.'' 4. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case the provisions of Articles 226 & 227 are not attracted. We find no infirmity to the orders 30 impugned. 5. For these reasons, the instant appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed-Order of Single Judge Upheld. *******