H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Satish G. M. , holding brief for Shri G. Ganesh Shenoy, for the revision-petitioner and Shri K. S. Savanur for the respondent. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th July, 1993, delivered in M. A. No. 11 of 1993 (Smt. Lakshmidevamma v C. M. Narayana Reddy) from the judgment and order dated 22-4-1993, passed by the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , Gowribidanur, on LA. No. I, granting the temporary injunction. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Trial court, taking the view and recording the finding to the effect that in order to get the relief for injunction, plaintiff has to prove prima facie case, that is a case prima facie triable and that prima facie case did not mean prima facie title. He further opined in order to establish prima facie case, plaintiff has also to establish his possession on the date of the suit for injunction and in the matter of claiming temporary injunction the lower Appellate Court found that the survey which took place on 28-12-1990, reveal that the defendant had been in possession of the land in dispute, namely 24 guntas of land. He further observed that no doubt plaintiff had taken the plea that defendant has surrendered the land or given the land, after survey. He considered the circumstance that within three months of survey, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction and this was sufficient circumstance by itself to disbelieve the plaintiffs case that possession of encroached land was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The Trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiff has prima facie and shown his possession. It held that defendant-respondent has been in possession of the disputed land. May be he is a trespasser, but even then the plaintiff is not entitled to get the injunction till he gets the possession of the land and the property trespassed by the trespasser and he held, therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to decree for temporary injunction. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved from that order, the revisionist has come up by revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved from that order, the revisionist has come up by revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 4 ) SHRI Satish G. M. raised contentions on the line of the ground staken in the memo of revision that Court below erred on law and facts in appreciating the evidence that was placed by the revisionist-applicant before the Trial Court and erred in not believing that the respondent-defendant had surrendered the land. The learned Counsel as such submitted that when there are two views possible of prima facie evidence, the temporary injunction should have been granted. . ( 5 ) THESE contentions have hotly been contested and it has been contended by the respondent's Counsel that firstly there is no error prima facie and that plaintiffs possession has not been established on the date of the suit, he has not been entitled to get injunction order and finally court came, to the conclusion, after trial also that plaintiff has not been in possession and suit for permanent injunction may not be decreed. He submitted when finding on question of prima facie case and possession on the date of the suit is primarily finding of fact not touching the jurisdiction, and it was within the jurisdiction of the Court to record these findings and the finding does not suffer from any jurisdictional error under either of the clauses (a), (b) or (c), cannot be interfered with. ( 6 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties. The scope of Section 115 of the Act is limited to jurisdictional error, as held in the case of M/s. D. L. F. Housing and Construction Company Private Limited v Sarup Singh and Others, their lordships observed as under:"8. The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law, they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The. . . . High Court does not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power under Section 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify interference on revision under Section 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional District judge in his manner of dealing with this question". ( 7 ) THE observations of their Lordships quoted above, clearly reveal that the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact, simply on the ground that the High Court would have been inclined to take a view other than what has been taken by the Courts below. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the contention of the learned Counsel which has been advanced, which has been primarily confined to the appreciation of evidence, as to prima facie, even if the finding assumed to be erroneous, erroneous finding of fact or error in recording finding of fact cannot entitle the Court to interfere with such findings. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the contention of the learned Counsel which has been advanced, which has been primarily confined to the appreciation of evidence, as to prima facie, even if the finding assumed to be erroneous, erroneous finding of fact or error in recording finding of fact cannot entitle the Court to interfere with such findings. It is not something as acting illegally or with material irregularity. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The revision is devoid of merits. It is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .