Hon'ble JAIN, J.—Heard the learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7/plaintiffs filed a revenue suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of disputed land against defendant No. 3/petitioner as well as defendant Nos. 1 and 2/respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the trial Court, which was dismissed by the S.D.O., Kota vide judgment dated 16.6.1998. On an appeal preferred on behalf of plaintiffs, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota vide its judgment dated 13.7.2001, allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the subordinate Court with a direction to se the record of the period prior to the present settlement and subsequent revenue record including `Jamabandi' and `Naksha-Trace' (map) and to dispose off the matter. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid remand order, defendant No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Board, but the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 22.6.2011. Being aggrieved with the same, defendant No. 3 has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per finding of the trial Court, there was no evidence available on record, therefore, suit was dismissed. The Revenue Appellate Authority also observed that subordinate Court will look into the old record of settlement, which shows that there was no evidence in the case, therefore, the matter should not have been remanded, but it should have been disposed off on merits, therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board, both, committed an illegality in passing the impugned orders, which are liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board and I find that dispute involved in the present case could have been resolved only after seeing the revenue record of the period prior to present settlement took place, therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority was absolutely right in remanding the matter to sub-ordinate Court to dispose off the matter, afresh, after seeing the concerned settlement record and other revenue record. Revenue Appellate Authority was well within its powers in passing such order. Learned Revenue Board endorsed the view of Revenue Appellate Authority. Revenue Appellate Authority was well within its powers in passing such order. Learned Revenue Board endorsed the view of Revenue Appellate Authority. This Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to see only the error of jurisdiction and this Court cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal. 5. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or legal error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the Revenue Board so as to interfere with the same. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297), held the High Court cannot is 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. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. 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. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 , has held as under:- "The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character." 9. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.