IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20284 of 2011 Gulam Rasul Versus Mahabir Sah & Anr ---------------------------------- 02. 22.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application is heard treating the same as an application filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. This application has been filed against the order dated 15.06.2011 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Saharsa in Misc. Civil appeal No.32 of 2000 whereby the Court below dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the order dated 05.09.2000 passed by Munsif, Saharsa in title suit No.17 of 2000 rejecting the injunction application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2. It appears that injunction application was filed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant-petitioner. Both of them filed the injunction praying for restraining each other from interfering with the possession of each other. The trial Court rejected the petitioner’s application whereas allowed the plaintiff-respondents injunction application. Against the said order passed by the Court below, the petitioner’s filed Misc. appeal which has been dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the petitioner has purchased only - 2 - one katha out of plot No.3104 and he has got no concern with other plots which are subject matter of the suit. On the basis of registered sale deed, he is in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the learned Court below has wrongly rejected the injunction application and allowed the injunction application filed by the plaintiff. The said illegality has been confirmed by the appellate Court. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that both the parties are claiming possession over the suit property. After considering the case of the parties, prima facie the Court below found possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. This finding is concurrent finding. In the case of Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 2010 (9) Supreme Court cases 385, the Apex Court while examining the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has held that the exercised of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required from them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of - 3 - the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flaggerant violation of fundamental principal of law and justice. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate Court or substitutes its own Judgment in place of that of the subordinate Court to correct an error which is not apparent on the face of the record. In this decision, the Apex Court also held that the supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised like a ‘bull in a China Shop’ to correct all errors of Judgments of a Court or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. Admittedly, in the present case both the Courts below have recorded a prima facie finding while disposing of the injunction applications regarding possession of the subject matter of the suit. In supervisory jurisdiction, therefore, this prima facie finding cannot be interfered with by the High Court. However, the finding recorded shall not prejudice the Court or the party at the time of final hearing of the suit. In vies of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and accordingly this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)