JUDGMENT Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral) - The suit is for specific performance. It was filed in 2008. Issues were framed in 2011. Several last opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to lead her evidence. The petitioner has not been able to conclude her evidence so far. The trial Court has noticed the conduct of the petitioner and found no justification to adjourn the case again and again for the same purpose and has proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiff by order. 2. The present petition has been filed assailing two orders. The first one dated February 17, 2014 declining the request of the petitioner for examining Mr. H.S. Naru, Advocate, scribe of the agreement to sell, through a Commission for recording of his evidence on the ground that he is is sick and unable to attend court. The other order impugned is dated May 2, 2014 closing evidence of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in other cases Sh. H.S. Naru has been allowed by courts to be examined through a Commission on interrogatories or otherwise but no such orders have been shown. However, facts with respect to sickness or infirmity making it impossible for Mr. H.S. Naru to attend Court was neither pleaded nor shown before the trial Court. The ingredients of Order 26 Rule 1 have to be satisfied before a commission can be sent by Court. In exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 the High Court must follow the regime of law. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither original nor appellate. 4. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patel, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3663] : (2010) 8 SCC 329 the Supreme Court observed that power under Article 227 is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principles. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest while in comparison Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances. The Court explained that power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The Court explained that power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 5. In Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895 the Supreme Court observed: “ 12. ...jurisdiction conferred [under Article 227] is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts and tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority...” 6. The Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the scope of Article 227 in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaquim & Others, (1983) 4 SCC 566 . The court observed as under:- “The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited “to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority,” and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 7. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 7. The Supreme Court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, (1995) 6 SCC 576 cautioning that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 8. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 341 again made it abundantly clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I find no error or infirmity in the order of the learned trial Judge closing evidence of the plaintiff to warrant interference in exercise of discretion and therefore the question of appointment of a Commission to examine Mr. H.S. Naru on interrogatories or otherwise does not arise. Dismissed. —————————