IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20143 of 2011 Mohammad Suleman Versus Bibi Sairun & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 22.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur in Misc. Appeal No.17 of 2010 which was allowed on 28.09.2011 and whereby the order passed by the trial court dated 06.07.2010 passed by Sub Judge I, Bhagalpur in title suit no.409 of 2008 granting injunction in favour of the petitioner was set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate court had not considered the facts and materials that has been considered by the Court below and allowed the appeal. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1999 Suprme Court 2322(Sri Jain Swetambar Terapanthi Vid(s) vs. Phundan Singh and others). The plaintiff-petitioner filed the title suit no.409 of 2008 for declaration of title only. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. praying for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner. A rejoinder was filed alleging that they are in possession in the 2 property. After hearing the parties, the trial court allowed the injunction application and restraining the defendant respondent from interfering with the possession. In appeal, the Court of appeal held that the learned Court below has not considered the materials available on record in right prospective and the findings recorded by the Court below is not according to facts and law and, therefore, set aside the order of the trial court. So far the decision cited by the petitioner i.e. AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2322(supra) is concerned, the Apex Court has held that the appellate court cannot set aside the impugned order without discussing the materials on record and record a contrary finding. It appears that in that case, the injunction order passed by the Court below was set aside by the High Court without discussing the materials. In the present case at our hand, the appellate court has considered the facts of the case and moreover, it has recorded that the trial court has not considered the materials available on record in right prospective and according to law. In (2010) 9 SCC 385 (Jai Singh and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi), the Apex Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised like a “bull in china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its 3 jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.” From perusal of the impugned order, it cannot be said that the learned Court of appeal below has exercised any jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that he acted in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. In my opinion, therefore, even if there is any error of fact or error law, the same cannot be corrected in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application and this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)