IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17202 of 2011 Bimla Devi & Anr Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 28.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendants- respondents-petitioners against the judgment dated 11.8.2011 passed by Sri Diwakar Mishra 3rd Additional District Judge, Saran at Chapra in Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2011 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Trial Court and directing the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the parties filed their respective documents and the trial court after considering the said documentary evidences which were filed by the parties in support of their cases in the injunction application found that the plaintiff has got no prima facie case. On the same set of documentary evidences the learned court below after considering the documents set aside the order passed by the court below and allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment. The learned counsel next submitted that the petitioners are the purchasers and they are making the construction and if the order is not set aside they shall 2 suffer serious loss and if injunction is not granted there will be no hardship to the plaintiff. In AIR 2005 SC 104 Maharwal Khewaji Trust Vs. Baldev Dass the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 10 has held as follows : “We do not think in the facts and circumstances of this case, the lower appellate Court and the High Court were justified in permitting the respondent to change the nature of property by putting up construction as also by permitting the alienation of the property, whatever may be the condition on which the same is done. In the even of the appellant’s claim being found baseless ultimately, it is always open to the respondent to claim damages, or, in an appropriate case, the Court may itself award damages for the loss suffered, if any, in this regard. Since the facts of this case do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think both the Courts below, namely, the lower appellate Court and the High Court erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders are set aside and the order of the trial Court is restored.” In (2003) 6 SCC 675 Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others the Apex Court has held that the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction 3 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in appreciation or examination of evidences and also that the supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct errors by drawing inferences and to correct errors of mere fact or law. In (2010) 9 SCC 385 Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation the Apex Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised like a bull in China shop to correct all errors of judgments of a court or tribunal acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. In the instant case, admittedly after appreciation of documentary evidences available on record the learned court below passed the impugned judgment. Now therefore, this court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot turn itself to an appellate court and substitute its own finding contrary to the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on the same set of materials available on record. Moreover, the error which has been alleged to have been committed according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is not a patent error. According to the Hon’ble Supreme Court a patent error is an error which is self evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated arguments or a long drawn process of reasoning. Where 4 two inferences are reasonably possible and the Subordinate Court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. In view of the settled principles of law, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. A.F.R ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )