IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12129 of 2011 Vidyanath Dubey Versus Ram Kabilash Dubey & Anr ---------------------------------- 02. 01.08.2011 The State of Bihar is not a necessary party. Therefore, name of respondent no.2 is deleted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Buxar in Miscellaneous Appeal No.4 of 2010 whereby he dismissed the Miscellaneous Appeal and thereby confirmed the order passed by the trial court dated 04.03.2010 whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application for mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. read with Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. It appears that the petitioners filed the application praying for mandatory injunction for removing the constructions made by the plaintiff- respondent over the suit property. The learned trial court has given a finding that the petitioner is not in possession of the property and that the balance of convenience is not in his favour. This finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.4 of 2010. Although, in the case of Suryadev Rai vs. Ram 2 Chander Rai and others (2003)6 Supreme Court Cases 675, it has been held that writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable but then subsequently, a coordinate Bench in the case reported in (2009)5 Supreme Court Cases 616 has held that application under Article 226 in a private dispute between the parties concerned the land is not maintainable and doubted the correctness of the above decision so far it relates to maintainability of writ under Article 226 of Constitution of India is concerned and, therefore, the matter has been referred to the larger Bench which is still pending in the Apex Court. In view of (2009)5 S.C.C. 616, in my opinion, this application under Article 226 itself is not maintainable. Even if it is converted to an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order because the finding of the Court below cannot be interfered in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)