JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 11.01.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court) in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 71/2011, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and respondent No. 5 and 6 (original appellants - defendants), and confirmed the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Court No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court)in temporary injunction application no. 30/2009 filed in Suit No. 47/09. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present respondent No. 3 and 4 (original-plaintiffs) have filed the suit being No. 47/ 09, before the trial Court seeking declaration that the so called election of office bearers of Shri Gujarati Samaj, held on 30.08.2009, be declared null and void, and also for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had also filed an application being No. 30/09, seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from performing any act in the capacity of members of the executive committee or school committee or as the office bearers of the Samaj during the pendency of the suit. The said application was resisted by the respondent No. 5 and 6 (original-defendant No. 3 and 4), by filing detailed reply. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and documents on record, dismissed the said T.I. Application vide its order dated 24.02.2010.The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said order, had preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal before the Appellate Court, whereby the Appellate Court allowed the same and remitted the case to the trial Court for deciding the T.I. Application afresh, in view of the observations made in its order dated 22.02.2011. The learned trial Court after the remand of the case, again heard the T.I. Application and allowed the same vide the order dated 22.11.2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 5 and 6 (original-defendants), preferred the appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 71/2011, before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal upholding the order passed by the trial Court, vide order dated 11.01.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 5 and 6 (original-defendants), preferred the appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 71/2011, before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the said appeal upholding the order passed by the trial Court, vide order dated 11.01.2012. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court by filing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Daga for the petitioners that the Courts below have granted the relief to the plaintiffs at the interim stage virtually allowing the suit of the plaintiffs without any trial. Relying upon the constitution of Shri Gujarati Samaj, Jaipur, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no illegality committed in the election held on 30.08.2009, however, both the Courts below have misinterpreted the provisions of the Constitution of Shri Gujarati Samaj and also the proceedings of the General Body meeting held on 30.08.2009. Mr. Daga has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal(D) by Lrs. v. Ugarsen (D) by Lrs. And Ors., 2010(4) Supreme 519 , to buttress his submission that the Court could not grant the relief which was not specifically prayed for by the parties. Relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited., v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Others, AIR 1983 SC 1272 , in the case of Bank of Maharashtra, v. Race Shipping and Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another, AIR 1995 SC 1368 , and in case of M/s. Anand Associates v. Nagpur Improvement Trust & Ors. 2000(6) Supreme 218 , the learned counsel has submitted that the practice of granting interim orders which practically gives the principal relief has been strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court. Placing reliance on the decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Dandapat and Others etc. 2000(6) Supreme 218 , the learned counsel has submitted that the practice of granting interim orders which practically gives the principal relief has been strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court. Placing reliance on the decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Dandapat and Others etc. v. Secretary, Birabhadraswar Weavers' co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1994 Orissa 1 , and the decision of Madras High Court in the case of S. Krishnaswamy and others v. South India Film Chamber of Commerce and Others, AIR 1969 MADRAS 42 , the learned counsel has argued that right to election, is not a civil right and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. The learned counsel has also relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of M/S. Sriram Industrial Enterpirses Ltd. v. Manak Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 1370 , in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh 2006 (2) Supreme 75 , and in case of S.N. Kapoor (D) by his Lrs. v. Basant Lal Khatri and Ors. 2001(8) Supreme 65 , to submit that the jurisdictional error could be corrected by the High Court exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. R.D. Rastogi for the respondent No. 3 & 4 (original-plaintiffs) has vehemently challenged the very maintainability of the petition, by submitting that there being concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court in case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance co. Ltd. and Another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and in the case of Dipali Deij (Baxi) v. Mira Das, (2009) 11 SCC 495 , in support of his submissions. The learned counsel has further submitted that the General Body Meeting was held on 30.08.2009 vide Notice dated 04.08.2009, to discuss the issue of election, which was postponed in the earlier meeting, and that there was no agenda item mentioned for holding the election itself on 30.8.09. He further submitted that even the Election Officer had resigned and there was no other Election Officer appointed in his place on the said date and that even the President of the General Body Meeting had also resigned. He further submitted that even the Election Officer had resigned and there was no other Election Officer appointed in his place on the said date and that even the President of the General Body Meeting had also resigned. Under the circumstances, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the entire election for the office bearers including the President and Secretory was held arbitrarily, in violation of the Constitution of the Samaj and therefore, was illegal as rightly observed by both the Courts below. 5. Now, so far as the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution is concerned, the Apex Court in case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 , has laid down certain broad principles stating inter alia that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised to correct mere error of fact or law, and should be exercised sparingly to correct the jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below, occasioning failure of justice. The said ratio has been followed in the case of Abdul Razak(D) Thr. L.Rs. And Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 432 . 6. In view of the above settled legal position, it is clear that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised by the High Court only sparingly and in rare cases in which the orders passed by the lower Courts have resulted into grave injustice or gross failure of justice. Keeping in view the said legal position, if the facts of the present case are examined, it transpires that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the election of the office bearers of the Samaj, held on 30.08.2009 was prima facie illegal. It also appears as transpiring from the orders that there was no agenda circulated for holding the election on 30.08.2009 and there was also no election officer appointed on the said date. The President of the General Body Meeting had also resigned on the said day and one another person had acted as the President. The entire proceedings of the general body meeting conducted on 30.08.2009 were held by both the Courts below as prima facie not in accordance with the constitution of 'Shri Gujarati Samaj and, therefore, illegal. The President of the General Body Meeting had also resigned on the said day and one another person had acted as the President. The entire proceedings of the general body meeting conducted on 30.08.2009 were held by both the Courts below as prima facie not in accordance with the constitution of 'Shri Gujarati Samaj and, therefore, illegal. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below and there being no jurisdictional error pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, in the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Courts below had granted the reliefs to the plaintiffs which were not prayed for by them is concerned, the said contention has no force,in as much as the trial Court in the impugned order had restrained the defendants from acting as the office bearers of Shri Gujarati Samaj for the period of 2009 to 2012, which relief was already prayed for by the plaintiffs in the T.I. Application. The said order of trial Court, has been confirmed by the Appellate Court, however, it permitted the defendants to make payment of the electricity and water charges and also the salary of the employees of the Gujarati Samaj during the pendency of the suit. Such reliefs granted by both the Courts are in accordance with the prayer sought in the T.I. Application. 8. There is also no substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that while granting the interim application, the Courts below had virtually allowed the suit. So far as the main prayer in the suit is concerned, the plaintiffs have sought declaration to the effect that the election held on 30.08.2009 be declared as null and void and the office bearers elected had no right to act as such. The plaintiffs had also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting as the office bearers of Shri Gujarati Samaj, pursuant to the said election held on 30.08.2009. The plaintiffs had also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting as the office bearers of Shri Gujarati Samaj, pursuant to the said election held on 30.08.2009. It is true that the the Courts should be slow in granting such temporary injunction as would tantamount to allowing the suit at the interim stage, however in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Courts below have granted the temporary injunction on being prima facie satisfied that the election in question was not held in accordance with the constitution of the Samaj and therefore was illegal. There being no illegality or infirmity in the said orders passed by the Courts below, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore not helpful to the petitioners. 9. In view of the above, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******