IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8276 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.12.2010 Harchand Singh .... Petitioner Versus Sudagar Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.2.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Phul as well as order dated 8.10.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Bathinda thereby rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC. Perusal of the impugned judgments reveal that plaintiff- petitioner could not prove that defendants-respondents have demolished any wall standing on the disputed property in violation of the interim order. In view of this concurrent finding of fact, I am not inclined to invoke my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, 2010(9) C.R. No. 8276 of 2010 2 Supreme Court Cases 385 has observed that exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a Court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any finding recorded in the impugned order shall not come into the way of the learned trial Court while deciding the suit at its own merits. (ALOK SINGH) 20.12.2010 JUDGE reena