IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22056 of 2011 Abdul Jabbar & Ors Versus Nizammuddin Sai & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 14.12.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiffs petitioners have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Saran, Chapra in Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2010 dismissing the appeal and confirming the trail court’s order dated 6.7.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 78 of 2009 whereby the prayer for injunction made by the petitioners has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lower appellate court although considered the Pleader Commissioner’s report wherein it has been recorded that there are grave yard in existence but then refused to grant any injunction in favour of the petitioners. From perusal of the record it appears that the application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. was rejected by the trial court and after hearing both the parties the appellate court by the reasoned judgment dated 23.9.2011 affirmed the trial court’s order. In supervisory jurisdiction, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the findings recorded by both the courts 2 below. In the case of Jai Singh and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another (2010) 9 SCC 385 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court has the jurisdiction, no doubt, to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. However, it is well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The 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. In the present 3 case as stated from perusal of the order passed by the trial court as well as by the appellate court it appears that both the courts below after considering the materials available on record arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners have neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience is in their favour. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)