ORDER : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K Kejriwal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant/respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. N.C Das, learned senior counsel for the opposite party No. 1.petitioner. 2. By filing this application, the applicant questions the maintainability of CRP (I/O) No. 369/2017. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Kejriwal that by the order impugned in the civil revision petition, the learned lower appellate Court had exercised the powers under Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the CPC and, therefore, the learned appealed Court cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 , with particular emphasis on Paragraph-37(4) as well as in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 with particular reference to Paragraph-18. 4. In Surya Dev Rai (supra), the Supreme Court at Paragraph-37(4) had pointed out that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 5. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde (supra), the Supreme Court had laid down that the High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. 6. There is no doubt that the appellate Court has the power under Order 41 Rule 27(b) of the CPC to require any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause, the appellate Court may allow such document to be produced or allow any witness to be examined. 7. In the instant case, it is not a question of the learned trial Court exercising a power without jurisdiction. 7. In the instant case, it is not a question of the learned trial Court exercising a power without jurisdiction. The learned appellate Court, apart from official witnesses, sought to examine the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who did not participate in the proceedings and who were also not cited as witnesses by the plaintiff and the contesting defendant No. 5.appellant. The order also does not indicate whether after such examination, parties are allowed to be cross-examined. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without assigning any reason. 8. When a question of exercise of power in a manner not permitted by law, thereby occasioning failure of justice, is sought to be raised, such question has to be raised before the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it cannot be countenanced that the petition is not maintainable. 9. Whether the contentions advanced by the petitioner merits acceptance will be considered at the admission stage. 10. With the above observations and directions, the interlocutory application is dismissed.