IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16287 of 2011 Rajdeo Thakur & Anr Versus Hari Kishore Thakur & Ors ----------- 02. 22.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The plaintiff-petitioner application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 filed in the year 2000 was rejected by the trial court. Against the said rejection order, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No.14 of 2000/11 of 2004. After considering the case of both the parties by the impugned order, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial court. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the trial court as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court. In (2010) 9 SCC 385(Jai Singh and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another), the Apex Court has held that “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 2 fundamental principles of law or justice.” Since the Courts below after considering the case of the plaintiff did not find to be a case of grant of injunction and refused the injunction, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the correctness or otherwise of the orders cannot be decided. Moreover since filing injunction application in 2000, still today i.e. for 11 years, there is no injunction. Now after 11 years, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below and grant injunction in favour of petitioner. Therefore, this writ application has got no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh/A.F.R. ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)