JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.N. Varma, J.—Through the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a direction has been sought by the petitioners from this Court commanding the opposite party No. 1 to act within the bounds of jurisdiction vested in him and not to give any effect to the notice dated 30.3.2007, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, on the application under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2-A of C.P.C. It has further been prayed that opposite party No. 1 be directed not to proceed any further with the said application until the Appeal pending against the original order dated 28.11.2006 is decided in accordance with the directions issued by the lower appellate, Court and to keep the proceedings of the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. 2. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 instituted a Suit for injunction, being Regular Suit No. 459 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow. An application under Order 39, Rule 2-A was also preferred for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the functioning of the opposite party No. 3. The trial Court vide its order dated 28.11.2006 passed a restraint order directing the petitioners not to interfere in the functioning of the opposite party No. 3. Being aggrieved the petitioners as well as opposite party No. 4 filed separate Appeals being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 2007 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2007. The appellate Court vide its order dated 9.1.2007 stayed the operation of the order dated 28.11.2006 and directed the parties to maintain status quo. In the meantime, it appears that the opposite party No. 3, Smt. Rita Mittal, approached the trial Court in proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. on the ground of alleged violation of the order dated 28.11.2006. In the said application apart from others, petitioners were also impleaded as opposite parties. The trial Court vide its order dated 30.3.2007 directed the notices to be issued to the opposite parties. The application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., has been registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 33-C of 2007. Copy of the said notice is Annexure 1, perusal of which reveals that the parties are to put in appearance on 20.4.2007 either personally or through counsel. The application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., has been registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 33-C of 2007. Copy of the said notice is Annexure 1, perusal of which reveals that the parties are to put in appearance on 20.4.2007 either personally or through counsel. It is the issuance of this notice that is being complained about by the petitioners in the instant petition. 3. I have heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Mehrotra learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Anil Tewari, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 3. 4. Sri Prashant Chandra vehemently argued that very issuance of notice by the opposite party No. 1 on an application preferred by the opposite party under Order 39, Rule 2-A is in excess of jurisdiction vested in it by law. As per his submission the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the trial Court granting injunction having been stayed by the appellate Court and the Appeal still pending adjudication, the opposite party No. 1 ought not to have issued the notices. According to him since the order dated 28.11.2006 is subject-matter of challenge in Appeal and unless the same is adjudicated upon on merits, there cannot be said to be any violation of the order dated 28.11.2006. 5. He further submitted that there being no record before the opposite party No. 1, the same having been transferred to the appellate Court, therefore, too exercise of jurisdiction by the opposite party No. 1 in issuing notices is manifestly illegal. According to him, the parties are residing abroad and as such, it would be difficult to effect service notice on them and if the service is not effected then it would be a futile exercise of jurisdiction. The act of opposite party No. 1 as per his submission is nothing else but permanent harassment to his clients. 6. In support of his case he placed reliance upon decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Modern Food Industries (India) Limited and another v. Sachidanand Dass and another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465 and (1982) 3 SCC 484 , Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others. 7. 6. In support of his case he placed reliance upon decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Modern Food Industries (India) Limited and another v. Sachidanand Dass and another, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 465 and (1982) 3 SCC 484 , Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others. 7. Sri Tewari in opposition strenuously urged that upon an application preferred by the opposite parties, under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., only notices have been issued fixing 20.4.2007 for appearance which act was well within the bound of jurisdiction of opposite party No. 1, therefore, on the said score alone the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be thrown out at the threshold as being not maintainable. He further argued that since the parties are to appear personally or through counsel, therefore, even if some of the parties are unable to put in appearance, their Counsels can represent the case as is being done before this Court. 8. Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. reads as follows : “2-A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction.—(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, of the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.” 9. In the case at hand an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., has been preferred alleging violation of the order dated 8.11.2006 which according to the petitioners have been stayed in Appeal upon which only notices have been issued and no coercive measure has been adopted by the trial Court with regard to punishment etc. of the alleged violation, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court did not possess the jurisdiction to issue notice. The very provision of Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. contemplates that in case any disobedience of any injunction order is alleged, then the person who is said to have disobeyed the said order, has to be called upon to explain so that necessary orders with regard to the same be passed. Any proceedings which is instituted before the Court below, notices have to be issued calling upon the other side to answer the allegations. There appears absolutely no illegality when the Court below issues notices on the application for alleged violation. 10. A direction cannot be issued in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to prevent the Court from doing something which under law otherwise is permissible. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, thus, cannot be invoked for prevention of some act which is in accordance with law. 11. The power of ‘superintendence’ conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior Courts and tribunals within the bounds, of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and also that they do it in a legal manner. This power, however, does not vest the High Court with unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of jurisdiction of the Court or tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and fragrant disregard of fundamental principles of law or justice where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and fragrant disregard of fundamental principles of law or justice where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The power would also not be exercised” by the High Court to substitute its own judgement whether on question of fact or of law, in place of that of subordinate Courts or to correct an error not being an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or of an irregularity or illegality of procedure unless such error affects the jurisdiction or involves a breach of Principles of Natural Justice. The High Court can only interfere where there is erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the face of the record, violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent fragrant error in procedure. In short the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to only examine whether the subordinate Court has kept itself within the bounds of its authority. 12. I have gone through the decisions rendered by the Apex Court and relied upon by the petitioners with respect, they do not have any application to the given facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 13. This Court upon consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case is of the considered opinion that in issuing notices on an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of C.P.C., the opposite party No. 1 has acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and has not at all transgressed the authority vested in it by law. 14. In the circumstances no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Sri Prashant Chandra lastly submitted that the stay order passed in Appeal still subsists whereas Sri Tewari disputes the said fact and states that the stay order granted has already lapsed. 16. Be as it may, whether the stay order subsists or has lapsed, is a subject matter to be considered by the competent Court. It will, however, be open for the petitioners to raise objections on the question of maintainability of application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. as well as the merits of the case before opposite party No. 1 on the date fixed. It will, however, be open for the petitioners to raise objections on the question of maintainability of application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. as well as the merits of the case before opposite party No. 1 on the date fixed. 17. In case any such objections are raised by the petitioners to the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., the same shall be dealt with by the opposite party No. 1 in accordance with law. 18. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is finally disposed. ———