JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 1.12.2007 passed by District Judge, Baran. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction along-with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC against the defendants-petitioners. The learned trial court, having analyzed the matter in detail, did not found the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff-respondents and resultantly dismissed the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2. Aggrieved with the order dated 25.7.2007, the plaintiff-respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Baran. The learned appellate court, vide its order dated 1.12.2007, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents, passed an injunction order in their favour and set-aside the order of the trial court. Hence, this writ petition by the defendants-petitioners. 3. The learned appellate court is found to have observed that the learned trial court did not take into consideration any documents filed by the plaintiff-respondents in support of their pleadings. There does not even seem to be whisper of the documents in the order of the learned trial court. The learned trial court having discussed the facts cursorily, dismissed the application of temporary injunction, which the learned appellate court set-aside for the reasons recorded therein. 4. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 707 categorically observed that the Patna High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the pure findings of fact given by the trial court and the then appellate court. 5. In the case of Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, (1963) 1 SCR 456 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on findings of fact even if it was erroneous. In this connection, the Apex court observed as follows: "It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. In this connection, the Apex court observed as follows: "It is settled law that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact. As the two Courts, approached the evidence from a correct perspective and gave a concurrent finding of fact, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the said finding." 6. To the same effect is another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam, Chettiar reported in (1963) 3 SCR 604 , where the Court observed as follows: "But the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusions of fact recorded by the lower Appellate Court, however erroneous the said conclusions may appear to be to the High Court, because as the Privy Council observed, however, gross or inexcusably the error may seem to be there is no jurisdiction under Section 100 to correct that error." 7. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that this Court should not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to upset the pure findings of fact. The scope of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. This extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked only when the judgment of the court below is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. The impugned order passed by the learned appellate court is found to be just and apt. I do not find any ground to upset the pure findings of fact and thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 8. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******