IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 111 of 2011 Decided on: 22.09.2011 Madan Lal & others …Petitioners. Versus Tej Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) and confirmed the stay order passed by the learned trial Court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent, Tej Ram (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over land bearing khasra No. 2919 measuring 3-19 bighas and dhara standing 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- thereon situated at Mohal Bishladhar, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu, H.P. 3. The stand of the defendants was that, in fact, they had purchased 19 biswas of land out of the total land of 3 bighas 19 biswas comprised in khasra No. 2919 from Bhadur Singh and that on this 19 biswas of land, the dhara in dispute was also situated. 4. The learned trial Court restrained the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the dhara constructed over the portion of land comprised in khasra No. 2919, which was, prima facie, found to be in the possession of the plaintiff. This order was confirmed in appeal. 5. At this stage, Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has vehemently urged that recently a tatima was got prepared and it was found that this dhara is not actually on khasra No. 2919, but on khasra No. 2923. In my view, the defendants cannot be permitted to raise this argument especially without amending the written statement, since in the written statement, it has been specifically stated by the defendants that they have purchased land out of the total suit land comprised in khasra No. 2919 measuring 3-19 bighas and the dhara was situate on the land purchased by them. They do not claim that they had purchased any land out of khasra No. 2923. 6. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can only correct error of jurisdiction and not errors of fact. I find no error in the -: 3 :- order of the learned Courts below. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 22, 2011 (rajni)