JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner-plaintiff has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 12th October, 2011 and order dated 5th November, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jaipur Metropolitan and Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan respectively. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned orders, it is noticed that a civil suit came to be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permanent injunction and declaration, for cancellation of decree passed in civil suit no. 83/1996 and judgment dated 30th November, 1996 and execution no. 02/2005 and passed order dated 20th May, 2011 together with an application of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The petitioner also sought interim relief from the Court, but the said prayer was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 12th October, 2011. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal also stood dismissed vide order dated 5th November, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan. 3. A very short question, which springs up for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against the order, wherein the trial court gainsaid to grant interim relief? 4. From a bare perusal of the impugned orders, it is gathered that the temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC has still been pending since the learned trial court gainsaid to grant the interim relief. Aggrieved with that order, he preferred an appeal and that too also stood dismissed. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of cases has consistently held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must be sparingly exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like, but not to upset pure findings of fact. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should not interfere with the order of the inferior court, unless the same is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. 6. Otherwise also, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the High Court should not interfere with the order of the inferior court, unless the same is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. 6. Otherwise also, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below. 7. 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. 8. 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." 9. 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." 10. 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 . 11. 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. 12. 11. 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. 12. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below and they do not warrant any intervention and the writ petition filed by the petitioner being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 13. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******