JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 24th December, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla whereby he confirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. VI, Shimla, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) for taking action under Order 39 Rule 2-A against the contesting defendants No. 1 and 2. The admitted facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit in which he prayed that the contesting respondents be restrained from raising construction. On the application filed by the plaintiff the learned trial Court on 27th June, 2006 passed an order directing the defendants to maintain status-quo. 3. The applicant-petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A complaining that despite the stay order passed by the learned trial Court the contesting defendants have continued with the construction. Evidence was led and both the Courts below have dismissed the application. 4. Ms. Seema Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that both the Courts below have totally misread the statement of PW-1 Bhuvenesh Chaturvedi, Jr. Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Shimla. I have gone through the orders of the Courts below and I have also gone through the statement of PW-1. The question is not whether I agree or disagree with the interpretation given by the Courts below. The only error which can be corrected in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is an error of jurisdiction. Even if the factual interpretation is incorrect the same cannot be corrected as long as the Court below has exercised jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, I do not find that this is a fit case to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is rejected in limine. No order as to costs.