JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 22.3.14 passed by the Additional District Judge, Abu Road, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.11.13 passed by the Civil Judge(J.D.), Pindwara, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking temporary injunction against the respondent-defendant no.1, stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents defendants in respect of the land forming part of a 'guwari', alleged to be in joint ownership and occupation of the plaintiff and the defendants. It was averred that on the portion of the aforesaid joint ownership land marked as F.G.H.I. in the site plan, the defendant no.1-Rama Ram proceeded to raise construction. 3. The injunction is sought in terms that the defendant no.1 may be restrained from raising the construction on the disputed land. That apart, mandatory injunction is sought for restoration of the position of the land as it was existing prior to defendant no.1 raising construction thereon. 4. The petitioner-plaintiff also filed an application seeking temporary injunction, which was contested by the respondent defendant no.1 by filing a reply thereto. 5. After due consideration, the application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 13.12.13. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court as also the appellate court have seriously erred in arriving at the finding that the petitioner-plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the material on record, it was proved beyond doubt that the property in question is in joint possession of the parties yet, the courts below have recorded the finding that the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land is not proved. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, it is a common ground between the parties that the 'guwari' is in their joint ownership and possession and they have equal share therein. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, it is a common ground between the parties that the 'guwari' is in their joint ownership and possession and they have equal share therein. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-defendant no.1 demolished a 'dhalia' existed on the land of joint ownership and possession marked in the site plan as E.B.F.G. and included the same in the land marked as F.G.H.I. and started construction thereon unauthorisedly. Learned counsel submitted that the courts below have not considered the Commissioner's report in correct perspective which has resulted in an erroneous finding being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that NOC issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the respondent defendant no.1 for the proposed construction, cannot be considered to be a conclusive evidence of the fact that the respondent-defendant no.1 alone is in possession of the disputed land. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is absolutely necessary that status quo existing at the site is maintained by the parties till the disposal of the suit. Learned counsel submitted that the courts below have seriously erred in deciding the issue with regard to balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the respondent-defendant no.1. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submitted that the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below are findings of facts, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is raising construction after demolition of the existing construction and therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff that the respondent-defendant no.1 is raising altogether new construction, is absolutely baseless. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner plaintiff has nothing to do with the disputed property and there was not even an iota of evidence on record showing that the petitioner plaintiff is having joint possession thereon and therefore, the finding arrived at by the court below regarding prima facie case not being in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, cannot be faulted with. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is settled law that in the matter of the temporary injunction, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is not co-extensive with that of the trial court. The appellate court can interfere with an order of the trial court granting or refusing injunction only when it is satisfied that (i) the trial court has acted contrary to law or (ii) has acted arbitrarily, or (iii) that the finding of trial court regarding the three requirements of grant of injunction are perverse or capricious or (iv) that there has been a misreading of the pleadings of evidence. (vide RSEB v. Mool Chand Jangir, 1993 (3) WLC, 388.) 10. In ' Skyline Education Institute (Pvt.) Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswamin & Anr.' 2010 AIR SCW 628 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering its various earlier decisions dealing with the scope of appellate court's power to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court of first instance in granting or refusing the prayer for temporary injunction observed : "The ratio of above noted judgments is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter, it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity." 11. In the backdrop of the position of law settled as above, obviously this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction cannot examine the correctness of findings arrived at by the courts below as an appellate court. In other words, unless the findings arrived at by the courts below on the basis of the material on record is found to be capricious or perverse, the question of this court interfering with the orders passed by the courts below does not arise. 12. In other words, unless the findings arrived at by the courts below on the basis of the material on record is found to be capricious or perverse, the question of this court interfering with the orders passed by the courts below does not arise. 12. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that after due consideration of the material on record, the trial court has arrived at categorical finding that the plaintiff claims himself to be the legal heir of Jaga Ram, however, there is nothing on record to show that he was ever in joint possession of the disputed land. Rather, it has come on record that the respondent-defendant no.1 is raising construction on the land measuring 24 x 44 sq. ft. in his possession after demolition of the existing construction. It is also matter of record that the construction plan submitted by the defendant no.1 stands approved by Gram Panchayat after rejection of the objections raised by the petitioner-plaintiff and co-defendants. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has claimed joint ownership and possession over the disputed land, however, he has not filed the suit for partition of the property and therefore, in absence of his possession over the disputed property being proved by any cogent evidence on record, the concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below that the petitioner plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. In absence of prima facie case being in favour of the petitioner, the other aspects governing the grant of temporary injunction i.e. the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, are not required to be gone into. 13. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the appellate court, affirming the order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******