Judgment Ram Chand Gupta, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for quashing order dated 9.5.2006 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Faridabad and order dated 4.11.2009 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide which the appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 3. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that respondent No.1- plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the brief allegations that he is in possession of the temple in dispute as Manager and Pujari and that previously his predecessors -in-interest were in possession of the temple as Manager and Pujari as per copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdwari as the temple is situated in Khasra No,98 situated in revenue estate of village Ajronda, Tehsil and District Faridabad and that defendants, who are having no concern with the said temple, on one pretext or the other wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the temple. On similar facts, an application for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC also filed. 4. The suit as well as injunction application were contested by the present petitioners-defendants on the grounds that plaintiff was in possession only as Pujari and that a society was formed to look after the said temple and the petitioners being office bearers had removed the respondent-plaintiff as Pujari of the temple by passing a resolution. 5. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence placed on record, allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by respondent-plaintiff and the present petitioners-defendants were restrained from interfering in the management of the temple by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit by observing as under: "From the sequence of events discussed above, it transpires that defendants on one pretext or the other wanted to dispossess the applicant/plaintiff illegally from the temple in suit. The Jamabandies pertaining to various years and the Khasra Girdwaris placed on record by the applicant/plaintiff also substantiate the fact that the plaintiff is in settled possession over the temple in question. The Jamabandies pertaining to various years and the Khasra Girdwaris placed on record by the applicant/plaintiff also substantiate the fact that the plaintiff is in settled possession over the temple in question. Even the copies of electricity bills, house -tax bills and water bills prima facie prove the possession of the plaintiff over the temple in suit and the fact that he has been managing its affairs since long. The Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in a recent decision rendered in Tarsem Singh and others v. State of Haryana (2005-3)141 PLR 594, has held that person in settled possession is entitled to protect his possession by way of injunction from the court and he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law even by the true owner of the immovable property. It was further held that even Government authorities cannot take the law in their own hands and dispossess the person in long settled possession without following the due process of law. These observations are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants renders no help to their case. Pritam Kumar and Ajeet Singhs cases (supra) deal with the rights of a licencee; whereas the other two citations reported in Harbhajan Brar and Jagan Singh cases (supra) deal with the fact where both the parties were claiming their respective possession. Thus, the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendants is clearly distinguishable. It may also be added here that defendants have merely alleged that they have already deputed another Pujari to carry out the ceremonies and worship in temple, but have not disclosed his name and particulars, which at this stage belies their stand. Even otherwise also judgment dated 11.3.1986 passed by the then learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad reveals that the plaintiff was installed as Pujari by the Gram Panchayat of the village; as such the defendants being mere residents of village Ajronda have no right to cause interference in the functioning of plaintiff as Pujari of the temple in question." 6. The petitioners have filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent-plaintiff has already been removed as Pujari. The petitioners have filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent-plaintiff has already been removed as Pujari. However, this plea has been contested by the plaintiff-respondent before the learned trial court by stating that he is in possession over the temple in dispute even today and that after issuance of injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, appeal remained pending for about 3 years before learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad and respondent-plaintiff has been continuing in possession over the temple as Pujari and he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. 8. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003)6 SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044 by Honble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This court can interfere only when error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 9. At this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact that as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff if ad-interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. The trial court vide impugned order has observed that prima facie case is made out in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff-respondent as he has been recorded in possession over the temple in dispute even in the revenue record and hence, he cannot be removed just by passing a resolution by the petitioners, as he was installed as a Pujari by the Gram Panchayat of village Ajronda. 10. In view of aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that discretion exercised by both the courts below by granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent- plaintiff is in anyway arbitrary or illegal or some material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has been occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 11. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 12. 11. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 12. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court.