JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 19th March, 2007 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the Temporary Injunction application as also the order dated 29th March, 2011 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer dismissed the civil misc. appeal. 2. The nub of the petitioner's story is that the petitioner-plaintiff has been running a stone crusher since 1995. He has been having a commercial electrical connection to run the stone crusher. The petitioner once requested the respondent-Electricity Department to change the current transfer device, which was accordingly changed by the respondent on 26th February, 2005. That time, the Meter Box was sealed and the Meter Reader also came to take the reading, but Meter Box was never found to have been tampered with. One day, he felt a foul smell from the Meter Box and resultantly, complained to the authorities, whereupon the current transfer device was changed. It is alleged that on 15th October, 2005, the petitioner was shocked to receive electricity Bill of Rs. 2,56,000/- for consumption of 59,960 electricity units. The petitioner brought this fact into the notice of the authorities who found that the wires of current transfer which was changed on 26th February, 2005 had been tampered with. The respondents-Authorities prepared a separate bill applying the average billing method and found a difference of Rs. 2,36,056/-, which was duly added to the electricity bill in question. Aggrieved with the said electricity bill, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of Temporary Injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The learned trial Court having heard both the parties dismissed the Temporary Injunction Application. The petitioner plaintiff feeling aggrieved with the said order, impugned the same in the Court of District Judge by preferring an appeal, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 29th March, 2011 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused both the afore-stated impugned orders, it is noticed that there has been a concurrent finding with regard to the fact that the wires of C.T. device had been tampered with, which were changed on 26th February, 2005 by the respondents-Authorities. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused both the afore-stated impugned orders, it is noticed that there has been a concurrent finding with regard to the fact that the wires of C.T. device had been tampered with, which were changed on 26th February, 2005 by the respondents-Authorities. The learned trial Court as also the appellate Court did not find the prima facie case in favour of the petitioner even the balance of convenience and the ground of irreparable loss were also found against the petitioner-plaintiff. 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 (1) categorically observed that the Patna High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the pure concurrent 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. 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 same view was taken in two earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D. Pattabhiramaswamy v. Hanymayya reported in AIR 1959 SC 57 and Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 1097 . 8. The same view was taken in two earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of D. Pattabhiramaswamy v. Hanymayya reported in AIR 1959 SC 57 and Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 1097 . 8. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction after reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below and remand the case to the Additional Judicial Commissioner. 9. It is relevant to record that the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in plethora of cases that the inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be invoked by the High Court only when the impugned order is found to be perverse, contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. The suit for Permanent Injunction has still been pending and merely the application for Temporary Injunction has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved with the amount of electricity bill, the same may be deposited by him under protest, and if the suit is decided in his favour then either the amount deposited by the plaintiff petitioner shall be refunded to him or the same shall be adjusted against the bills to be raised in future. In view of above, I do not find any ground to make any interference with the finding arrived at by the Courts below. The impugned orders are found to be just and proper and they warrant no intervention. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit, deserves to be dismissed in limine, which stands dismissed accordingly. 11. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******