¥~ •!'!!SSBS!W3mS-:S•;• intiff Respondents Versus 1.' Shupendra Kumar, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Dayaram Kosle, Occupation Service, Resident of Vittags and Post Jaijaipur, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Jamjgir-Champa (C.G.) Ramjeevan, aged about 45 years, Son of Shri Ghasiram; Rameshwar, aged about 55 Son ofShri Ghasiram; Soth castes are Resident of Village and Post Jaijaipur, Tahsi! Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Artice 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Present : Shri RaSnesh Agrawal, counsel for the petltioner. ilff 3y thls petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 26.03.200-7 passed by the Civil Judge Class-2 Sakti, Distrlct Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in an application fiied under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction, possession of the vacant land and mesne profit in Civil Suit No.443-A/2006. The petitioner filed an application under Ordgr 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for appointment of the Commissioner for demareation and measurement of the suit tand (Annexure P-3). 2. The learned Court beiow after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the demarcation of the suit land had already >. =s. ~~:.-'^-^:^.^:-/ 4~ taken piace earlier and against the said demareation the petitipner has not filed any appeal or revision. The petitioner remained absent In the demarcation proceeding throughout. At this.juncture when the sult is under conslderation and written statement has.been filed.no useful purpose would be served by appointing a Commissioner for demarcation and verification. which has already been done. Accordingly, the application was rejected. The contention of learned counse! ror the petitioner that the dsmarcation would be helpful for proper disposal of the suit, deserves to be rejected on the simple jround that the demarcation has already taken earfier and the petitioner has not taken any steps for impugning the legality of the said 3. It is wetl settled principle of law that under Article 227 of the Constitution of india, this court has jurisdiction of judicial review of the order passed by the Court below, in the event, there is manifest an< apparent error on the face of the proceedings based on the clear jnorance or utter disregard to the provisions of iaw or there is grave failure ofjustice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Further, this court can a!so entertain the petltion in its supeivisory jurisdiction if there is perversity, irregularity or jllegality in the process of decislon, not in the decision itself. There is no merit In the case as the Impugned order is just and proper and needs no interference. 4. Thus, Siiis petition is dtemissed summarily. ndu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -^'S?W9