IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. $268l/2004 PETlTlONERS 1. Kalicharan Sonakar,aged about 36 years. S/o. Lt. Marhuram Sonkar 2. Smt. Yashoda Bai Sonkar, aged about 23 years 3. Smt. Saraswati Bai Sonkar, aged‘about 4O years, D/o. Lt. Marhu Ram Sonkar 4. Smt. Saroj Bai Sonkar, aged about 25 years, D/o. Lt. Durga Charan Sonkar, Present R/o'. Gunderdehi, District Durg All of R/o. Ramkund Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS i. Surendra Kumar ]ain,aged about 4O years, S/o. Satyanarayan Jain. 2. S.K. ]ain &I Sons (H.U.F.) Prop: S.K. ]ain, aged about 4O years, S/o. Satyanarayan ]ain, 3. Smt. Kusum ]ain, aged about 37 years, W/o. Surendra Kumar ]ain, W 6) All of R/o. B-4 Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shanti Finance 8i Property Development Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Smt. ‘ Kusum ]ain Registered office A/l 3, Mahavir Gaushala Complex, K.K. Road, Maudhapara, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA gereef I’v,’ (gN ) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Writ PEtition No. 3682 of 2004 Kalicharar; Sonakar 5a otherS Versus Surendra Kumar Jam x35 others Shn' Abhay’ Tiwari, Advocatc for the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on; é ,LkNovcmbcr 2004) As net LC. Bhadoo J. 1. The petitioner haa preferred thia writ petition under Article 2‘27 of fhe Constitution of India, questioning the correctness and 1egality of the order dated 4.9.2004 paesed by the learneii ll‘h Additional District Judge (ETC) Raipur i11 Misc. Civil Appeal No. 8/ 2004, whereby learned Additional District Judge affirmed the order dated 12.5.20G0 passed by leamled 5m Civil Judge, Class—II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 42—A/QOOO, I‘ejec1jng.tlle application filed by the petitioneie (herein) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. for grant of tempera}? injunction. Id (herein) med a suit before the 5th Civil Judge Class —II Raipur for declaration and injunction against the respondents (herein) to the effect that the defendant No.5 Smt. Buddha Bai, Village— Cirhooldeeh had sold the land admeasun'ng 11.567 square meter of Khasra No, 792] 1 8:, 0.806 to the Reepondents No. 1 to 4 (herein) by registered sale cleecl dated 12.10.1999, whereas the said land wae co—paroenery [joint- property of the Bn'ef facts leading to filing of This petition are that the petitioner ’ e *‘1‘. K i. ”H/ 03 Oi Imtitioners, themfore without C011se11t Qf the pctitioners (herein) she was not entitled to sold the same. Learned trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner f0: gram of temporary injunction on the ground that in me. record the land in question was in the name of the defendant No.5 Buddha Bai and the petitioners (herein) were not able to produce any documentary or other evidence to Show their right of ownership in the property. On appeal, learned lower appellate Court also aii'umed the order on the same ground, 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission of the petition. Under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India this Court can interfere with the order of the ems-ordinate Court under the I supervisory jurisdiction only when iinpugned order is perverse, contrary to settled principles of 1aw or the subordinate Court has no jurisdiction and failed to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in that Court or failure of justice or grave injustice has resulted, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Surya Dev Rai V. Ram Chanda: Ra: & Grs. reported in JT 2003 (6) 8C 465 that: “interlocutory orders passed by courts subordinate to the High Court against. which the remedy of revision has been excluded are open to challenge and subject to certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. In exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction the High Court will not convert itseif into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inference or correct errors of mere formal or technical Character. W, i, subordinam court has assumed a jurisdictian which it doas not have or has fajkd to exgrcise a jurisdic’don which it has or thev jurisdiction though availabls is being cxcmised in a manner not. permittad by law and failurs of justica or gravs injustice has resultad, the High Cami may gtep in t0 exercisu its supervisory jurisdiction.” 1f WC 100k into thc fact of thu prtsunt case the land in qucstion was sold by Budiiha Bai to the Rcspondcnts No. 1 to 4 which was entexed 1‘11 her name in The revenue records and the petitioners herein were not able to Show that the land in questiou was joint Hinciu property‘of the petitioners. During the course of arguments leamled counsel for the petitioners was not able to point out as to how the orders passed by the trial Court and lower appellate Couxt are perverse or contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, this Court Cannot sit as an appellate Court. It is not a case Where the impugned order is passed in contravention of law or in any case the order is perverse. Therefore, on the above facts, I do not nnd any reason to interfere with the concurrent nndings of both the courts below and there is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court and the lower appellateCourt. The petition of the petitioner is dismissed at this admission stage itself. so! ‘ Sudge Thakur i. v vingiwiws