JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner sought for relief, by way of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The prayer was rejected by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. When the revision preferred against the said orders was also found as not maintainable, the petitioner has to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In (1) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai 2003(5) Supreme 390 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that amendment by Act No.46 of 1999 with effect from July 1, 2002 in Section 115 Civil Procedure Code cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction may intervene where the error is such, as if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice. While exercising jurisdiction the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. 3. In (2) Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. (2003) 3 SCC 524 the Apex Court propounded that where remedy for filing revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code is barred, petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie. 4. On a close scrutiny of material on record I find that in the case on hand the defendant Municipal Corporation Jaipur did not virtually contest the application of the petitioner for ad interim injunction. Neither reply of the application was filed nor the facts averred in the application were controverted by counter affidavit. The petitioner's apprehension that the subject matter of suit may get demolished during the pendency of suit, thus appears reasonable. The proceedings pertaining to grant of ad interim injunction are supplemental proceedings. Main purpose of injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in status quo for the time being. The petitioner's apprehension that the subject matter of suit may get demolished during the pendency of suit, thus appears reasonable. The proceedings pertaining to grant of ad interim injunction are supplemental proceedings. Main purpose of injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in status quo for the time being. While disposing an application for grant of temporary injunction the court should not go to the extent of deciding the main case of the parties but the order should be a speaking order showing that the court has taken a decision after applying its mind. The discretion vested in court should be exercised on reasons and sound judicial principles. 5. The error of jurisdiction committed by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur in the case on hand is not capable of being taken care of at a later stage. The error if not corrected may become incapable of correction at a later stage and therefore refusal to intervene under Article 227 would result in travesty of justice. But at the same time proceedings under Article 227 cannot be turned into the forum of second Misc. Appeal. It is for the appellate courts to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by Order 43 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code properly and on sound judicial principles. 6. For the reasons aforementioned instead of issuing notice to the defendant Municipal Corporation Jaipur, I dispose of the writ petition in the following terms : (i) The order dated October 11, 2000 of the learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City stands set aside and the case is remitted back for a fresh decision. Learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City shall direct Municipal Corporation to maintain status quo in regard to the subject matter of the suit pending the decision of Misc. Appeal. The Municipal Corporation Jaipur shall be provided opportunity of hearing and Misc. Appeal shall be disposed of on reasons and sound judicial principles as expeditiously as possible. (ii) The petitioner is directed to appear before learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City on September 15, 2003 for seeking further instructions. Petition disposed of. *******