JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - The petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') is aggrieved of the order dated 24-5-2017 passed by Civil Judge Kota (North) on an application under Order 39 Rules 1& 2 CPC directing the defendant to maintain status-quo over the suit property during the pendency of the suit, as also the affirming order dated 30-1-2018 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal by the District Judge, Kota. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff in the application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC accompanying his main suit was that on the basis of registered Will 8.1.1987 executed by his father a part of the suit property came into his ownership and lawful possession and that of his brothers including the defendant. The respective portions which came to the share of each of the brothers, all sons of Ram Singh were reflected in Ram Singh's Will dated 8.1.1987 and the map annexed thereto, yet its enjoyment and user of the common area for the enjoyment all was being obstructed by the defendant by raising temporary construction over a portion larger than the share to his benefit under the Will dated 8.1.1987 and the common area was being encroached upon. Injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC was sought in the circumstances. 3. On service of summons, the defendant filed reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC and claimed to be in possession of the suit property as per the devolution under the Ram Singh Will dated 8.1.1987. 4. On consideration of the matter the courts below at the interlocutory stage prima facie found from the material on record that the plaintiff had made out a case for interim protection as the defendant had encroached on the common area. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also thus found in favour of the plaintiff. The court in the circumstances restrained the defendant and directed that status-quo over the suit property be maintained during the pendency of the suit. 5. The conclusions of the courts below are based on findings of fact arrived at on objective consideration of the material on record such as the Will dated 8.1.1987 and map annexed thereto as also the report of the Commissioner appointed for local inspection under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC. 5. The conclusions of the courts below are based on findings of fact arrived at on objective consideration of the material on record such as the Will dated 8.1.1987 and map annexed thereto as also the report of the Commissioner appointed for local inspection under Order 39, Rule 7 CPC. Finding of fact at interlocutory stage are ordinarily also not a matter in which this court invokes its superintending jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] has pitched the bar to the exercise or jurisdiction under Article 227 very high and held that the concurrent findings of facts even if erroneous cannot be disturbed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Indeed the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in exceptional cases vis-a-vis interlocutory orders only when they are ex-facie perverse, vitiated by misdirection in law or otherwise suffer from jurisdictional error of the courts below. No such infirmity afflicts to the impugned orders. 6. The petition is therefore without force and hence dismissed.