IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 631 OF 2007 M/S. SESA GOA LIMITED ... Petitioner Versus SMT. REKHA PALKAR ALIAS YOGITA YESHWANT NAIK AND 16 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. N. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.R. Parsekar, Advocate for Respondents No.1,2 & 17. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 29th April, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in RCS No.8/07/B. The said Civil Suit was filed by the plaintiff against defendants no.1 to 15 with a view to restrain them from interfering in the property which is surveyed under No.22/1-A of Village Advalpale, which admittedly is not recorded in the survey records in the name of the said defendants no. 1 to15 or for that matter defendants nos. 6 & 7 ordered to be added by virtue of the impugned order. The survey record shows the names of one Shri Umakant Advalpalkar and 6 others. The said defendants no.16 & 17 as intervenors filed an application for intervention which came to be granted by the impugned order. In granting their application, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, inter alia, observed that; "The documents produced prima facie established the Interveners are the successors of late Uttam V. Palkar who owned the Matriz No.88 of Advalpale village. The Survey Report prima facie shows that the property 'Borod Calxinoi' of Advalpale bearing Survey No.14174 correspond with part of Survey No.22/1-A." 3. The learned Trial Court also observed that the other defendants namely defendants no.1,2,3,4 & 13 and 14 had not objected to the application of the intervenors to be added as defendants in the said Civil Suit. 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the suit of the plaintiff was for injunction simpliciter. Learned Counsel further submits that the cause of action in the suit is the interference of defendants nos. 1 to 15 and has nothing to do with the claim of right to the suit property made by the said defendants no.16 & 17. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Gonsalo De Filomena Luis V/s. Inacio Piedade Hildeberte Fernandes & Ors. (AIR 1977 GDD 4). 5. I have perused the aforesaid decision. True, the suit is filed by the plaintiff for injunction but it has been shown by the said defendants no. 6 & 7 that they have some interest in the suit property and that being so, in my view, this is not a fit case for interference in supervisory jurisdiction, more so, in the light of what has been stated by the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Razak (dead) thro' LR's & Ors. V/s. Manguesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors. (2010 (2) SCC 432). The Apex Court has observed that supervisory jurisdiction is not available merely to correct errors of law. It must also be shown that grave injustice has occasioned thereby. Such is not the case here. 6. Writ Petition is therefore hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH