IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20432 of 2011 Indrajeet Prasad Versus Ramashish Prasad & Ors ---------------------------------- 4. 09.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Dronacharya appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the appellate order dated 17.9.2011 passed by Additional District Judge-4th, Siwan in Misc. Appeal No. 20 of 2010 whereby the appellate court set aside the order passed by the trial court granting status quo order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has given a wrong finding that plaintiff has got no prima facie case and the reason assigned is not tenable. According to the learned counsel during the pendency of the partition suit the respondents cannot be allowed to make any construction on the coparcenary property but the learned court below set aside the order passed by the court below whereby the learned court below has directed the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has considered the reasoning of the learned trial court and then also considered pleading of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff petitioner himself admitted that the parties are separate since long according to their convenience and they are enjoying the property separately. Therefore, the learned appellate court found that if at this stage they are restrained from enjoying the property according to their convenience there will be hardship. Moreover, the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasoning of the learned court below cannot be examined in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 9 SCC 385 the supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked for correcting the mistake of law or fact. In the present case, it cannot be said that the appellate court had no jurisdiction at all to set aside the order of the trail court. The appellate court has considered the facts of the case and then has given a finding that the plaintiff has got no prima facie case nor any balance of convenience is in his favour. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion the impugned order cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)