This revision petitioner under section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arises out of proceedings under section 145 CrPC. 2. The proceedings under section 145 CrPC was drawn up on police report and on a petition filed by the petitioner, claiming that he was in possession, of the disputed land, from which he was sought to be forcibly dispossessed by the respondent. The Executive Magistrate by his order dated 5.9.94 held that it was the respondent second party who was in possession of the disputed land, and were entitled to retain and remain in possession and the petitioner first party was forbidden from disturbing their possession. 3. Aggrieved by the same the first party petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Judge who by his impugned order dated 16.8.95 dismissed the same. Thus the findings as regards possession as found by the Courts below is concurrent. 4. The present revision petition is clearly hit by section 397 (3) CrPC and as such not maintainable. Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory bar. See (i) Dharampal vs. Ramashri, AIR 1992 SC 1361; (i) Deepti vs. Akhil Rai, (1995) 5 SCC 751 ; (iii) Ranjan Kumar vs. State of Karnataka, 1990 (Suppl) SCC 132. 5. Let us now turn to Article 227 of the Constitution. Whether it can be invoked in face of the concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the counts below. The law as regards scope of interference is well settled by the Supreme Court in its several judgment. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be most sparingly exercised only to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. It cannot be exercised to upset findings of facts howsoever erroneous those made be. See India Pipe Fitting Co vs. Fakruddin, AIR 1978 SC 45 , Mohd Mustaquine vs. Mohd Yunus, AIR 1984 SC 38 . It is only when an order of the lower Court or tribunal is violative of fundamental basic principle of justice or where patent and flagrant error in procedure, resulting in manifest injustice that the Court may justifiable intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. See Trimbak Gangadhar Telang & another vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide & others, AIR 1977 SC 1222 . See Trimbak Gangadhar Telang & another vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide & others, AIR 1977 SC 1222 . In the same being is another judgment as reported in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani vs. Mohansingh Pratapsingh Pardeshi, (1994) 6 SCC 576. 6. In any view of the matter the petition is liable to be dismissed, it is accordingly dismissed.