JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Plaintiff-Petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 1st February, 2011 passed by trial court, whereby application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC filed by applicant Smt. Phool Devi has been allowed and Smt.Phool Devi has been impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the suit. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that applicant is not a necessary party and further that in case she is impleaded as a party then present suit for eviction will be converted into a suit for title, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for allowing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 5. The trial court has observed that rented premises was let out to father of present defendant by late Shri Narain Dutt and late Shri Chauth Mal and after their death, the plaintiffs have become the landlord. The capacity of present applicant and plaintiffs is one and same. She is also daughter of late Shri Chauth Mal. In these circumstances, she is also a necessary party in the suit. 6. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1297) , held 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. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. 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. 8. 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. 9. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.Petition Dismissed. *******