—T—-~~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETLTIQNER PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT DEFENDANT WRIT PETITION (227) No. 47 of2009 Devnath Garudik S/o Late Jhumuklal Aged about 70 years, Retired Government Employee R/o H. NQ. 366, Padnabhpur Colony, District Durg C.G. VERSUS Hardev Lodhi Samaj Arang^ Through Jagesar Lodhi, S/o Late Kisun Lodhl, Presldent Hardev Lodhi Samaj, Kewasi Lodhi Para, Arang, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TIIE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J, Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 09th day of January, 2009) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.10.2008 (Annexure P/l) passed by tlie 1 Additional District Judge, Raipur, in miscellaneous Appeal No. 6/2008 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P/5) for grant of interim injunction was rejected by the 7 Civil Judgc, Class II, Raipur, was dismissed. The petitioner filed a civil suit (Annexure P/2) for declaration to the effect that the order ofsocial boycott dated 20.03.1998 (Annexure P/3) passed by the defendant-Hardev Lodhi Samaj (for short 'fche Samaj') may be declared as null and void. Further, a permanent injunction may be passed against the defendant-Samaj from passing such an order of social boycott. Alongwith the plaint, the petitioner filed an application 4. under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking interim injunction against the defendant-Samaj, from giving effect to the social boycott order which is the subject matter ofthe suit. The leamed Civil Judge, after having considered all the aspects ofthe matter, by order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P/5) held that prima facie, balance 'of convenience is not in favour ofthe petitioner and as such, the petitioner has failed to point out.any irreparable loss. Further, granting interim injunction would amount to grant offmal order. Being aggrieved^ the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal before the 1st Additional District Judge. The 1st Additional District Judge, Raipur in miscellaneous appeal No. 6/2008, after having examined the case at length, affirmed the fmdings recorded by the court below. It was observed that granting interim injunction would amount to grant offinal order and an injunction amountmg to permanent injunction in nature which cannot be granted without examining the case properly afiter examinmg the witnesses and evidences led by the parties. Thus, this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The entire case ofthe petitioner is that the social boycott order dated 26.03.2008 passed by the defendant- Samaj, is bad in law. The petitioner has failed to establish asto how he would suffer irreparable loss. Balance of convenience is also not in favour ofthe petitioner. The relief as prayed for by the petitioner would tantamount to grant of fmal relief. Even otherwise, there is no ££ra33i^ /^g-y\ i •^SIS 1 ^..1^^.. 6. jurisdictional error^ irregularity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. It is well night settled that the High Court while exercising its super^isory jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia has limited jurisdiction that unless there is any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law or the Court has mis-directed its order on law and fact, the High Court should restrain itself from interfermg with such fmding made by the courts below. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinates Courts within the bounds oftheir authority and not for correctmg mere errors. As a result, and in view ofthe foregoing, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aimt