ORDER : A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present unnumbered Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.07.2014 in I.A. No. 69 of 2013 in O.S. No. 12 of 2013 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, Adilabad District. 3. The Office has returned the Civil Revision Petition with the following objection: "It is to be clarified as to how the CRP is entertainable against the order dt. 16/07/2014 in I.A. No. 69 of 2013 in O.S. No. 12 of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, which was filed against the Order 39 Rule 1 R/w 151 of C.P.C." 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had re-presented the Civil Revision Petition stating as follows: "The order passed by Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa in I.A. No. 69 of 2013 in O.S. No. 12 of 2013, where as the petitioner declared as owner of the property in O.S. No. 22 of 2004 dt. 01/08/2008 again the respondent filed O.S. No. 12 of 2013 and I.A. No. 69 of 2013 and the Junior Civil Judge, granted injunction as such the same is nothing but res judicate and peruse of binding on recent decision held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 2005 (7) SCC 211 , hence the CRP is maintainable." 5. Hence, this matter has been listed for orders of this Court as to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition. 6. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the first respondent in I.A. No. 69 of 2013 in O.S. No. 12 of 2013. The plaintiff filed the said I.A. seeking relief of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC against defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from entering, interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit agricultural land in Survey No. 255/E admeasuring Ac. 0.9 guntas, Survey No. 255/E admeasuring Ac. 0.9 guntas and Survey No. 256/AA admeasuring Ac. 0.10 guntas within the specified boundaries situated at Kubeer Village and Mandal in Adilabad District. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 remained ex parte, and the first respondent therein alone filed the counter affidavit. After considering the case of both sides, the trial Court, by order dated 16.07.2014, allowed I.A. No. 69 of 2013. 7. 0.10 guntas within the specified boundaries situated at Kubeer Village and Mandal in Adilabad District. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 remained ex parte, and the first respondent therein alone filed the counter affidavit. After considering the case of both sides, the trial Court, by order dated 16.07.2014, allowed I.A. No. 69 of 2013. 7. The first respondent in the I.A., instead of filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the lower appellate Court, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in those circumstances, the above objection was raised by the Office. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai AIR 2003 SC 3044 in support of his contention that the present Civil Revision Petition is maintainable even without invoking the appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC. 9. In Surya Dev Rai's case (supra) the appellant before the Supreme Court filed a suit for permanent injunction based on his title and possession over the suit property in the Court of Civil Judge. His application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial Court and also by the appellate Court. Challenging the same, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court had summarily dismissed the petition forming an opinion that the petition was not maintainable as the appellant was seeking interim injunction against private respondents. While dismissing the said petition, the High Court relied on a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad AIR 1991 All 114 . The Supreme Court considered the impact of the amendment in Section 115 of CPC brought in by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002. After considering the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the Legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior court or tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have concluded." 10. Ultimately the conclusions were summarized in paragraph 38 as under: "Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) Amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 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 assuming jurisdiction 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. 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 (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case." 11. In the aforesaid case, after availing the remedy of appeal, at the stage of revision, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked, and in those circumstances, the Supreme Court considered the cases on point and compared the power of the Court under Section 115 of CPC and supervisory jurisdiction contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 8 of the conclusions is clear with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction in the place of a Court of appeal. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner wants this Court to sit as a Court of appeal and reappreciate the evidence without availing the remedy of appeal provided under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC. Thus, the facts in that case are not applicable to the present case and are distinguishable. There is another decision of two Judge Bench in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695 , which is directly on the point. 13. The Supreme Court in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu's case (supra) considered whether the High Court should have entertained a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the party had two other alternative remedies. It was observed that though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well-recognized principle which has gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies one or the other before he resorts to a constitutional remedy. The learned single Judge need not have entertained the revision petition at all and the party affected by the interim ex parte order should have been directed to resort to one of the other remedies. The said case arose out of an ex parte interim injunction and the party had an option of filing a petition to vacate the said order and/or to file an appeal against the said order. In those circumstances, the above observations were made by the Supreme Court. 14. A learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Governing Council of American College v. Dr. In those circumstances, the above observations were made by the Supreme Court. 14. A learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Governing Council of American College v. Dr. M.D. Christober (2010) 6 MLJ 172 elaborately considered the maintainability of a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC without availing the remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC, and held as follows: "30. In this case, it cannot be stated that the lower Court has no jurisdiction or the jurisdiction was improperly exercised in a manner not known to law. Further, the supervisory jurisdiction will not confer the High Court to go into the merits and demerits of the case and finding of the lower Court cannot be re-appreciated and this court cannot evaluate the evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences. 31. Further, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim ( AIR 1984 SC 38 ) that "a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227". I have dealt in detail that the lower court on the basis of the documents filed has come to the prima facie conclusion and that conclusion cannot be analysed or re-appreciated, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227. Further, an effective and alternative remedy is available under Civil Procedure Code, by filing an appeal and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. 32. According to me, the petitioners have not proved any exceptional circumstances for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that there is no apparent error on the face of the record and the order of the lower Court is not perverse. However, I make it clear that I am not giving any opinion on the finding of the lower Court and it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the same in the appellate forum as provided under Civil Procedure Code...." Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. 15. However, I make it clear that I am not giving any opinion on the finding of the lower Court and it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the same in the appellate forum as provided under Civil Procedure Code...." Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed. 15. This Court also considered the same issue in respect of the provision prior to the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in H.R. Shenoy v. M. Murali Krishna 1990 (1) ALT 336 and held that the order of interim injunction granted by the lower Court is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC but not revisable under Section 115 of CPC. 16. In view of the above, the Office objection is upheld and Registry is directed to return the papers to the learned Counsel for the petitioner for presentation to the appropriate Court, if the petitioner is so advised.