Hon'ble , J.—The petitioners have challenged two orders, namely order dated 31.07.2004 and the order dated 18.01.2005 both passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. The case of the petitioners is that on 02.11.1995, the Assistant Collector, Bansur, Alwar decided to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner's father, Gordhan who was arrayed as respondent No.5 in the civil proceedings. According to the petitioners, the notices were never served upon his father. Subsequently, his father expired and yet a decree has been passed against Gordhan. The petitioners moved an application under order 9, Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order. However, vide order dated 24.06.1999, the learned Assistant Collector dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority ('the RAA”, for short). But vide order dated 13.11.2000, the RAA dismissed the appeal. Subsequently,the petitioners filed a revision before the Board. However, vide order dated 31.07.2005, the Board rejected the revision. The petitioner filed a review petition. Vide order dated 18.01.2005, the review petition, too, was rejected. 3. A bare perusal of the order dated 31.07.2004, passed by the Board clearly reveals that according to the record, the notices were duly served upon the petitioner's father, Gordhan on 25.09.1993, whereas he died subsequently on 18.06.1994. Thus, he had the knowledge about the pendency of the proceedings. Once a judicial finding has been given about the fact that the notices were duly served upon Gordhan, the same cannot be disturbed by this Court in its jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj & Ors. ( (2008) 9 SCC 1 = 2009(1) RLW (SC) 172) has held as under :- “Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate Court or inferior Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior Court or Tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts and inferior Tribunals within the limits of law.” 5. In the result, this writ petition is devoid of merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.