https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171471 Under writ and supervisory jurisdiction, a superior court cannot reappreciate evidence, draw fresh factual inferences, or act as if hearing a further appeal. Interference is limited to patent, self-evident errors; findings that require elaborate reasoning or detailed evaluation do not justify correction. Applying that standard, the court exceeded the permissible scope of review by reconsidering the evidence and substituting its own view for the appellate court's factual conclusions. The appellate court's order upholding eviction was therefore restored, and the landlord's challenge succeeded. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:24:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171471 Under writ and supervisory jurisdiction, a superior court cannot reappreciate evidence, draw fresh factual inferences, or act as if hearing a further appeal. Interference is limited to patent, self-evident errors; findings that require elaborate reasoning or detailed evaluation do not justify correction. Applying that standard, the court exceeded the permissible scope of review by reconsidering the evidence and substituting its own view for the appellate court's factual conclusions. The appellate court's order upholding eviction was therefore restored, and the landlord's challenge succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171471