JUDGMENT : S.C. Sharma, J. The petitioner before this Court, who is plaintiff before the learned trial Court, is aggrieved with the order dated 27/09/14 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No.14-A/2013, by which, his application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 10/08/16 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No.02/2016, by which, the appeal against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge has been dismissed, meaning thereby, both the Courts below have declined to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the present petitioner has filed the civil suit for declaration and for grant of permanent injunction and it was stated in the civil suit that husband of the defendant No.1 was real brother of the plaintiff and the father of the defendant Nos. 2 & 3, who are again the real brothers of the plaintiff. It was also stated that oral partition took place between the family and the land in question came to the share of the plaintiff. It was also stated that present petitioner is still in possession of the land. Along with the suit an application was preferred by the petitioner under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff was not able to prove the factum of possession and the trial Court after taking into account all the documents produced by the plaintiff has given finding of fact that the plaintiff is not in the possession of the suit property and in those circumstances, the application preferred under Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected. 3. The appellate Court has again on the basis of evidence brought by the plaintiff on record has given finding of fact that learned trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 27/09/14, meaning thereby, the Courts below have been arrived at a finding of fact that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and both the Courts below have declined to grant injunction in the matter. 4. 4. This Court, after careful consideration of the impugned orders, is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court, does not warrant any interference in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders passed by the Courts below are neither perverse nor suffers from any jurisdictional error. 5. The apex court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 in paragraph 49 held as under:- "49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated: (a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different. (b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above. (c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. (d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court. (e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. (h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. (i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & others, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful. (j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227. (k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu. (l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory. (m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. (n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above. (o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality." 6. In light of the aforesaid judgment as no patent illegality has been committed by the Courts below and the order passed by the Courts below does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders dated 27/09/2014 and 10/08/2016. However, as the suit in question is pending since 2013, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at an early date so that the lis between the parties decided finally. 7. No order as to costs. 8. Certified copy as per rules.