Judgment Vandana Kasrekar, J. 1. Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 13-5-2014 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Additional District Judge, Pipariya, Distt. Hoshangabad in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 08/2013. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of disputed pathway admeasuring area 15 x 60 feet at Southern end of his house and also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants/petitioner from carrying out construction over the disputed pathway. Along with the said suit, respondent/plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code. 2. The petitioners/defendants filed their reply. 3. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 20-8-2013 allowed the injunction application filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners/defendants filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Pipariya, Distt. Hoshangabad and the same was dismissed by the appellate Court by order dated 13-5-2014. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Courts below did not consider the contentions raised by the petitioners in their reply. He further states that the petitioners have also filed an application for calling of the report of Commissioner and Tahsildar to ascertain the identity of pathway/passage at south end of plaintiff as per sale deed dated 6-1-1920 and sale deed dated 4-4-1951, however, learned Court below have not considered this application and dismissed the said application illegally. He further submits that the trial Court and the appellate Court have ignored the essential ingredients for grant of injunction. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Gurmeet Singh Sokhi v. Subhash Mallik and others, reported in 2005(2) MPLJ 348 and M. Kallappa Setty v. M.V. Lakshminarayana Rao, reported in AIR 1972 SC 2299 . According to him, as the petitioners are in settled possession of the suit land and, therefore, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have erred in law in granting injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 5. According to him, as the petitioners are in settled possession of the suit land and, therefore, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have erred in law in granting injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by both the Courts below and states that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the petitioners/defendants cannot be permitted to raise construction on the said land. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited one and for the said purpose he relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ashutosh Dubey and another v. Tilak Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Bhopal and another, reported in 2004(3) MPLJ 213 : 2004(2) MPHT 14 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the orders passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court. After perusal of the record, I found that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the disputed pathway and, therefore, the petitioners/defendants cannot be permitted to raise construction on the said pathway. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of facts which cannot be interfered by exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court in the case of Ashutosh Dubey and another (supra) in para-6 has held as under: "6. So far as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Single Bench judgment in Mangilal v. Gourishankar (supra) is concerned, the facts of the aforesaid case are entirely different. The Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai's case (supra) considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India held in para 38 is as under:-- "38. The Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai's case (supra) considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India held in para 38 is as under:-- "38. (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 there by occasioning failure of justice. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a 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 fact 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. Considering the aforesaid, it is apparent that the order passed by the Courts below is without jurisdiction and the Court below has assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in it. Once the application under Order 26 Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code was rejected by the trial Court on merits, there was no occasion for the trial Court for re-consideration of the aforesaid application on similar facts. Apart from this, it is settled law that no such commission may be issued for collecting the evidence in the case. If the aforesaid order allowed to remain in existence it will cause serious injustice to the other side. Apart from this, it is settled law that no such commission may be issued for collecting the evidence in the case. If the aforesaid order allowed to remain in existence it will cause serious injustice to the other side. This Court in Laxman v. Ramsingh, Civil Revision No. 18 of 1982, decided on 24-2-1982 (1992 MPWN 255) has considered similar question held:-- "The prayer for appointment of a Commissioner was made on the ground that the Commissioner would be able to see on the spot the crop which is standing on the suit lands. This according to the defendant will bring out the truth of his case as according to him it was gram crop as sown by the appellant which was standing on it. Learned Counsel for the non-applicant plaintiff had submitted that the appointment of Commissioner as being sought on certain assumptions. He had in this connection pointed out certain pleadings in that behalf. The object of local investigation is not so much to collect evidence for either of the parties. It is within the discretion of the Court to Order a local investigation or reject the prayer. The Court below has exercised that discretion by rejecting that application. In view of the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Court has committed any error on jurisdiction while rejecting the application in that behalf." 8. The judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the present case as they are distinguishable on the facts of this case. In view of aforesaid submissions and the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ashutosh Dubey and another (supra), and looking to the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being limited one, this writ petition has no force, therefore, the same is dismissed without any order as to cost. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously.