N THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPU ‘é 1 WRIT PETITION 227 No.£?>u*z2011 Emmi BENCH Petitionerz I” Pradeep@ Dilip Kumar,S/o Jagdish Plaintiff 2&ww‘“ w ‘ Prasad Hatari Jaisawal, Raigarh Tahsu Age 40year, & District R/o Raigarh Purani v5.7?wyww (c.G.)' ¥ wé.w! (T‘W"'“ A . “¢)\'3, ,A~ .6” ‘ \ $0m” VERSUS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA‘ W 5‘ nefendants / Kumar,Management Incharge, ,w' (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattlsgarh HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (227) No. 1826/2011 Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3.‘ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (07.04 .201 1) Heard. (2) Both the courts below have rejected plaintiff’s prayer for grant of temporary injunction. (3) The plaintiff preferred the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in June, 2008 along with an application for grant of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent/Municipal Corporation (A to demolish the construction raised by the petitioner and not to make any construction on the existing drainage. (4) The Trial Court vide its order 30m March, 2010 has recorded a dnding that prima facie the petitioner has encroached and raised construction on vacant Nazul land adjoining to the shop in his e ”t possession and that if the Corporation is restrained n‘om widening the drain it shall adversely meet the interest of the public. r’ (5) The Corporation, in its reply, has stated that the shop in possession of the petitioner is not used and that die suit has been tiled PETITIONER : Pradeep @ Dilip Kumar Versus RESPONDENTS : Municipal Corporation and‘others Appearance: without service of noh'ce under Section 401 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. It has also been stated that the existing drainage is to be widened and the drain as well the Sulabh Sauchalaya is in em’stence for last about 23—24 years. (6) The Appellate Court has a$rmed the finding reco’rded by the Trial Court with regard to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. (7) This Court has gone through the orders passed by the court below and on perusal thereof it would appear that there is no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the courts below. (8) It is settled law that in exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not to function as an Appellate Court and interference can be made only when there is failure ofjustice and that the power cannot be exercised to correct mere errors of law. (9) In the matter of Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and others Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the parameters with regard to jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (10) Applying the said principles and parameters this Court does not find any such error in the impugred order which requires to be corrected in this petition in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (l 1) Petition fails and is hereby dismissek ”MM—x» r Sdl- ham Kumar M‘Sh‘a Pras Judge