JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The plaintiff-petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 24th November, 2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 467/1993, whereby the application filed by defendants for production of two documents under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC has been allowed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and for demolition of disputed construction and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents in dispute which have been taken on record, were not at all material and necessary for adjudicating the real controversy involved in between both the parties, therefore, the trial court has committed an illegality in allowing the said application. In the alternative, he contended that the present suit was filed in the year 1973 and the same is pending for last more than 35 years, therefore, trial court be directed to expedite the trial of the suit. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court and after considering the same, I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, so as to interfere with the same. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another {AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297} held that the High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal and made the decision of the subordinate court or tribunal final on facts. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal. It's function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim, {AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38} held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 7. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 8. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim, {AIR 1984 Supreme Court 38} held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or Tribunal. 7. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. 8. So far as alternative prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I think it fit and proper to issue direction to the trial court to decide the suit itself as soon as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order may be sent for compliance to the concerned Court.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******