JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs. "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed the present petition may kindly be accepted impugned orders dated 31.10.2014 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6-D/XIV-2013 passed by ld. Addl. District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., orders dated 1.6.2013 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 76/2012 in Civil Suit No. 93/2012 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., whereby application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs stands dismissed and appeal filed also stands dismissed, may very kindly be set aside and application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC may very kindly be allowed, thereby respondents herein may very kindly be restrained from changing the nature, raising any boundary wall and construction on the suit land and also from interfering in the possession of the applicants/petitioners/plaintiffs with respect to the land detailed in the suit and application, during the pendency of the suit, in the interest of law and justice." 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that vide order dated 01.06.2013, Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kangra at Dharamshala dismissed an application filed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') i.e. CMA No. 76/2012, in Civil Suit No. 93/2012, vide which petitioners/plaintiffs had prayed for issuance of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs and changing the nature or raising any construction over the suit land, subject matter of Civil Suit No. 93/2012, which had been filed by petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants. As per petitioners/plaintiffs, suit land which was recorded in the ownership and possession of respondents/defendants was carved out of Khasra Nos. 223 and 224, which were owned and possessed the petitioners/plaintiffs, Manjeet Singh and other co-sharers jointly and respondents/defendants had filed an application for partition of the joint land before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, who had abruptly ordered the partition. However as per the petitioners/plaintiffs, appeal filed against the order so passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was accepted by the Appellate Authority i.e. learned Sub Divisional Collector, Dharamshala, who set aside the order of partition. However as per the petitioners/plaintiffs, appeal filed against the order so passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was accepted by the Appellate Authority i.e. learned Sub Divisional Collector, Dharamshala, who set aside the order of partition. As per the petitioners/plaintiffs, respondents/ defendants were still interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs. On these bases, temporary injunction was prayed for in the civil suit which was so filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants. 3. The application so filed for grant of temporary injunction was contested by respondents/defendants on the grounds that in fact they were owners in possession of the suit land and entries to this effect stood incorporated in revenue records and there was no joint ness of land in between the parties and they were having no knowledge of the appeal filed against the order of partition. 4. Learned trial Court dismissed the application so filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 by holding that the suit land comprising Khasra No. is recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Rasta', whereas the land comprising Khasra Nos. 772/223, 1022/773/224, 1025/773/224, 1146/774/224 was recorded in the exclusive ownership and possession of plaintiffs, defendants and other cosharers. Learned trial Court held that records demonstrated that respondent Manjit Singh had filed an application for partition before Assistant Collector 1st Grade which was allowed on 18.07.2002 and appeal filed against the said order was allowed by Collector, Dharamshala on 07.07.2009 who remanded back the case to Assistant Collector 1st Grade to examine the objections of the petitioners/ plaintiffs after affording an opportunity of being heard. Learned trial Court further held that order dated 23.03.2013 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade demonstrated that partition order dated 18.07.2002 in file No. 19/99 was given a final effect in the revenue record w.e.f. 21.05.2003 and entries to this effect had also been carried out in jamabandis for the year 2004-2005 and 2009-2010. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that it was apparent that parties were no more having joint status and suit land stood partitioned by metes and bounds and appropriate remedy for plaintiffs was to approach the higher forum on the side of revenue courts for redressal of grievance. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that it was apparent that parties were no more having joint status and suit land stood partitioned by metes and bounds and appropriate remedy for plaintiffs was to approach the higher forum on the side of revenue courts for redressal of grievance. It further held that said application was fairly and squarely hit by Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, as well as Section 171 (2) (xvii) of H.P. Land Revenue Act. On these bases, learned trial Court held that there was no prima facie case in favour of plaintiffs and balance of convenience was rather in favour of respondents/defendants. Accordingly, learned trial Court dismissed the application so filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 5. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners/plaintiffs filed an appeal i.e. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6-D/XIV/2013 which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala vide order dated 31.10.2014. While dismissing the appeal it was held by the learned Appellate Court that suit land stood partitioned by Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide order dated 18.07.2002 and pursuant to partition order, suit land stood allotted to respondents/defendants and partition had been given effect to in the revenue record. Learned Appellate Court also held that petitioners/plaintiffs had assailed the partition order before Sub Divisional Collector, who has set aside order dated 18.07.2002 and remanded back the case to Assistant Collector 1st Grade and after remand, Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not interfere with the partition order already passed on 18.07.2002 on the ground that partition had already been given effect to in the revenue records. Learned Appellate Court further held that admittedly the said order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 23.03.2013 had not been assailed, meaning thereby that partition order had attained finality and the fact remained that suit land stood partitioned and respondents/defendants were in possession of the suit land. Learned Appellate Court further held that being owners in possession of the suit land, respondents had every right to use the same in the manner they intended to and petitioners/plaintiffs had no prima facie case in their favour. It also held that balance of convenience was also not in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs nor they were going to suffer any irreparable loss in any manner. It also held that balance of convenience was also not in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs nor they were going to suffer any irreparable loss in any manner. On these bases, learned Appellate Court upheld the order passed by learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal so filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 6. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this petition. 7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to deal with the scope of this Court while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. A three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 SCC 423 , has held that all the courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that control of working of the subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or Revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article 227. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that while appellate or Revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes, power of superintendence under Article 227 is constitutional. 9. It is settled law that power under Article 227 is intended to be used most sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ouseph Mathai and others v. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319 , has held that no doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said Article as a matter of right. In fact power under this Article casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this Article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party. 11. A five-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another, A.I.R.1954 S.C. 215, has held that this power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in - 'Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee', AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. 12. Coming to the facts of this case. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that jurisdictional error which was committed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala while dismissing the appeal so filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby it had refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of petitioners was that learned Appellate Court did not appreciate that the subsequent order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 23.03.2013 stood assailed before the Appellate Authority. It was further urged by Mr. Sharma, that besides this, both the learned Courts below erred in not appreciating that as there was a prima facie case in favour of petitioners and balance of convenience was also in their favour, as such, it was incumbent for the learned Courts below to have had restrained the respondents/defendants from carrying out any construction over the suit land during the pendency of the civil suit, otherwise very purpose of filing the suit would have had frustrated. Mr. Sharma further argued that learned Courts below also erred in not appreciating that what stood allotted to the respondents by way of partition was in excess of what they were entitled to as per their share. Mr. Sharma relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Zenit Mataplast Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2009) 10 SCC 388 and on the strength of this judgment he urged that the impugned orders be set aside and during the pendency of the civil suit, respondents/ defendants be directed not to carry out any construction over the suit land. 13. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants, on the other hand, argued that there was no merit in the present petition because fact of the matter was that in the appeal proceedings which had been preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 23.03.2013, no stay order had been granted by the Appellate Authority and factum of filing appeal was never disclosed by petitioners before learned Appellate Court. Mr. Bhushan submitted that the arguments which were being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner were in fact beyond the scope of plaint also and in fact there was no illegality in the orders which stood assailed before this Court because both the learned Courts below had rightly held that there was neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience was in favour of petitioners nor they were to suffer any irreparable loss if temporary injunction, as prayed for, was not granted. Mr. Bhushan argued that had injunction been granted against the defendants, then that would have caused irreparable loss to the defendants because effect of the said order would have had been that true owners who are duly recorded as owners in possession of the suit land would have had been restrained from utilizing the same. Mr. Bhushan further argued that even otherwise whatever construction was to be carried out by the respondents/defendants during the pendency of the suit was always subject to the decision of the civil suit and the defendants were ready to face the consequences. On these grounds, he argued that there was no merit in the present petition and the same be dismissed. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case as well as the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 15. It is settled law that any party which seeks interim injunction/protection in its favour has to prove three things. (1) Prima facie case, (2) Balance of convenience and (3) Irreparable loss. It is the own case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the suit land as per revenue record is recorded in the ownership and possession of the respondents/ defendants. The contention of the petitioner is that said revenue entries are recorded on the basis of partition proceeding effected by Assistant Collector 1st Grade which stands challenged by them before the appropriate authority. It is the own case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the suit land as per revenue record is recorded in the ownership and possession of the respondents/ defendants. The contention of the petitioner is that said revenue entries are recorded on the basis of partition proceeding effected by Assistant Collector 1st Grade which stands challenged by them before the appropriate authority. Be that as it may, fact of the matter still remains that as per the revenue record it is the respondents/defendants who are owners in possession of the suit land and not the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not placed on record any stay granted by the Appellate Authority in the proceedings which stands initiated against the order of partition passed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, meaning thereby that as of now the order of partition passed by the said authority is in force. In this view of the matter, even balance of convenience cannot be said to be in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs because the order of partition stands duly implemented in the revenue record and till the time same is set aside or stayed by the competent authority, its operation in law cannot be curtailed. Besides this, when as per revenue records, petitioners/plaintiffs are not owners in possession of the suit land, then it cannot be said that if temporary injunction is not granted in their favour and respondents are not restrained from carrying out construction, petitioners/plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and very purpose of filing the civil suit will be frustrated. This is for the reason that ordinarily injunction is not granted against the true owners. Besides this, as the petitioners/plaintiffs have already filed a suit against the respondents/defendants, which is pending adjudication, construction, if any, carried out over the suit land by the respondents/defendants would be subject to decision of the suit. In addition, there is no bar for petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority by way of an appropriate application for stay of operation of the partition order till the appeal filed by them is decided or for moving an application praying for any other appropriate relief in this regard. In addition, there is no bar for petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority by way of an appropriate application for stay of operation of the partition order till the appeal filed by them is decided or for moving an application praying for any other appropriate relief in this regard. I also find merit in the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants that even otherwise injunction cannot be granted in favour of petitioners on contentions which are beyond the scope of plaint filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 16. The judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Zenit Mataplast Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2009) 10 SCC 388 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs is also of no assistance to the case of petitioners in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case because this Court has come to the conclusion that neither the petitioners have any prima facie case in their favour nor balance of convenience is in their favour nor it can be said that they would suffer from irreparable loss if temporary injunction is not granted in their favour. In fact, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment that grant of temporary injunction is governed by three basic principles, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, which are required to be considered in the appropriate proportion in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not appropriate for any Court to hold a mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction. 17. Therefore, in view of findings returned above, in my considered view, there is neither any jurisdictional error committed by the learned first Appellate Court while dismissing the application of the petitioner nor it could be said that findings returned by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Kangra at Dharamshala while dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the petitioners/plaintiffs suffer from any perversity. However, it is clarified that dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of petitioners for approaching the Appellate Authority before whom order dated 23.03.2013, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade stands assailed for seeking appropriate interim relief from the said authority. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of petitioners for approaching the Appellate Authority before whom order dated 23.03.2013, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade stands assailed for seeking appropriate interim relief from the said authority. Accordingly, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. It is made clear that findings returned in this case shall have no bearing on the merits of the Civil Suit and the Civil Suit shall be decided by the learned trial Court uninfluenced by the findings returned and observations made by this Court in this petition. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.