1. The subject matter of the writ petition is order dated 21st October, 2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Anantnag read with the order dated 5th March, 2008, passed by Munsiff Anantnag in a suit titled as Mohammad Shafi Bhat and another v. Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Bhat, whereby application for grant of ad-interim relief moved by writ petitioner was dismissed, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that he filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction before the Munsiff Anantnag alongside an application for grant of ad-interim relief was also filed. The application for ad-interim relief was dismissed, constraining the petitioner to file appeal before the Additional District Judge, Anantnag which too was dismissed. 3. Trial court and Appellate court dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner on the basis of the report of Commissioner appointed by the trial court. Basing the decision on a Commissioner's report is illegal and not in accordance with law. 4. Commissioner has reported that respondents are entitled to pathway meaning thereby, the trial court and Appellate.court has decided the title of the suit thereby rendered the suit infructuous. Respondents have filed reply and resisted the petition on the grounds taken therein. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. The power of granting an interim relief in terms of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter for short as CPC, is a discretionary one. Refusing or granting of relief is appealable in terms of Section 104 read with Order XXXXI1I of CPC. It is beaten law of the land that discretionary order is not to be interfered with unless it is abuse of process of law and unwarranted. Both the courts have agreed with the version of the respondents and passed their verdict against the petitioner. 8. In view of recent amendment in CPC, no revision lies against such orders. 9. Now the question is, as to whether the writ petition is maintainable? 10. The Apex Court in case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported as 2010 AIR SCW 6387, and in case titled Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. v. K. D. Ganapathi & Anr. 9. Now the question is, as to whether the writ petition is maintainable? 10. The Apex Court in case titled Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported as 2010 AIR SCW 6387, and in case titled Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. v. K. D. Ganapathi & Anr. reported as 2011 AIR SCW 1737, has held that writ jurisdiction is only permissible when subordinate courts have acted in arbitrary jurisdiction and not otherwise. It is apt to reproduce Para 8, 9 and 10 herein:- "8. We have considered the respective submissions. We shall first consider the question whether the High Court could interfere with the order of the trial Court without considering the question whether the said order was vitiated due to want of jurisdiction or the trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the application of the respondents and the order passed by it has resulted in failure of justice. In Surya Dev Rai's case (supra), the two Judge Bench, after detailed analysis of the various precedents on the scope of the High Court's powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution culled out nine propositions including the following:- "(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by CPC Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e. when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction — by assumingjurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby." 9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra), the Court again examined the scope of the High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution and laid down the following proposition: "Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant lor protection of individual grievances. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." 10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court totally ignored theprinciples and parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitiition qua an interlocutory order passed by the Subordinate Court and set aside the order of the trial Court without assigning any tangible reason. The next question which needs consideration is whether a litigant filing the list of witnesses is bound to indicate, howsoever briefly, the relevance of the witness to the subject matter of the suit etc., and, in any case, one party to the proceedings cannot cite the advocate representing the other side as a witness and thereby deprive the latter of the services of the advocate without disclosing as to how his testimony is relevant to the issues arising in the case. In Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan (supra), this Court interpreted Order XVI Rule 1 (1), (2) and (3) CPC and observed: "If the requirements of these provisions are conjointly read and properly analysed, it clearly transpires that the obligation to supply the list as well as the gist of the evidence of each witness whose name is entered in the list has to be carried out in respect of those witnesses for procuring whose attendance the party needs the assistance of the court." 11. The Apex Court has virtually laid down the principles how and when the writ petition is admissible. 12. Admittedly the petitioner's case is not that the courts below have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. 13. The Apex Court has virtually laid down the principles how and when the writ petition is admissible. 12. Admittedly the petitioner's case is not that the courts below have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. 13. The case projected by the petitioner in Para 24 and 25 of his petition is that trial court and appellate court have committed gross irregularity and miscarriage of justice by rejecting the application. Thus it is not a case where writ is permissible. This court also in series of cases titled OWP No. 1364/2011 titled Abdul Rehman Dar and Ors. v. Showkat All Bhat & ors, OWP No. 69/2012 titled Ghulam Rasool Zargar v. State and others has laid down the same principle. 14. In the given circumstances, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable, therefore, dismissed.