JUDGMENT : 1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 30.12.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Jammu in file No.71/Misc Appeal titled as Amarjeet Kour and another v. The Managing Director, J&K Housing Board and others, whereby order passed by the trial Court dated 11.10.2012 has been set aside and appeal of the respondents has been allowed. The appellate Court has restrained the appellants herein from interfering or evicting the respondents from the suit property till final disposal of the case. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are: A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction came to be instituted by the respondents for restraining the petitioners from causing any interference or taking any step or initiating any proceedings for eviction of the respondents from the suit property comprising of two bedrooms, one lobby, one kitchen, one store, one toilet, two rooms with tin roofs constructed over plot No.25-A measuring 5 marlas-119 sqft comprising in Khasra No.70 min situated at Landoi Choi, Patwar Halqa Rakh Bahu, Tehsil Jammu Extension-IInd Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The suit was filed by the respondents primarily on the ground that that they have purchased the suit property by way of a proper sale deed from one Parvinder Kour. Said Parvinder Kour, it is claimed, was in occupation of the suit property situated in Survey No.70 min Landoi Choi. The illegal colony that had come up in Landoi Choi was regularized by the Government in terms of Order No.88-UD of 2005 dated 18.03.2005. Said Parvinder Kour, when came to know that the land in occupation of different persons in the colony at Landoi Choi of Rakh Bahu has been regularized, she approached the Director, Land Management, Jammu Development Authority and applied for regularization. On the application of Parvinder Kour, the matter was enquired into by the JDA and it was found that the land covered by Survey No.70 min situated at Landoi Choi, Patwar halqa Rakh Bahu has not been transferred to the J&K Housing Board. On finding that the land is vested in JDA, the latter regularized the possession of Parvinder Kour over land measuring 5 marlas-119 sqft falling in Survey No.70 min. Said Parvinder Kour thereafter sold the suit property in favour of the respondents. 3. On finding that the land is vested in JDA, the latter regularized the possession of Parvinder Kour over land measuring 5 marlas-119 sqft falling in Survey No.70 min. Said Parvinder Kour thereafter sold the suit property in favour of the respondents. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondents are in possession and the order of regularization of the land, subject matter of the suit, issued in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely, Parvinder Kour is intact and has not been set aside by any competent authority nor the sale deed executed by Parvinder Kour in favour of the respondents is under challenge before any competent forum. That being so, the respondents are prima facie entitled to hold possession till they are evicted therefrom in accordance with law. 4. The trial Court, as it appears from its order dated 11.10.2012, had ignored this aspect and held the respondents trespassers not entitled to any interim protection from the Court. The appellate Court after considering all the material available on record came to the conclusion that the respondents being in possession of the subject land/property, pursuant to a sale deed, prima facie hold a valid title to the property and, therefore, cannot be held to be trespassers. The appellate Court took into consideration all the relevant record available in the suit and came to the conclusion that the respondents have a prima facie case to maintain the suit and they being in settled possession also have balance of convenience in their favour. It is rightly noted by the appellate Court that in case, the respondents are evicted from the land in question and their possession is not protected, the suit of the respondents will become infructuous. 5. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the appellate Court. The order passed by the appellate Court, impugned in this Court, is required to protect the lis. Otherwise also, interim orders of protection passed by the Civil Court during course of proceedings are interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by the appellate Court, impugned in this Court, is required to protect the lis. Otherwise also, interim orders of protection passed by the Civil Court during course of proceedings are interlocutory in nature and, therefore, not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am also not inclined to treat this revision petition as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for the simple reason that the parameters for exercise of power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution enunciated by the Supreme Court do not justify interference with the discretionary orders passed during course of civil suit. 6. Judicial pronouncements as to the object and scope of power of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution (Section 104 of the State Constitution) would leave little scope to interfere with the orders of subordinate courts as a matter of routine. This power cannot be taken as a substitute for revisional power vested in the Court under Section 115 CPC. Nor this power can be invoked to correct mere errors of law or fact in the order or judgment/decision of Subordinate Court, as has been asserted by the petitioners in the case in hand. This power cannot be exercised if the Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Subordinate Court could have been different than what it is. The High Courts in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution should interfere with the Trial Court orders only to keep Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, ‘within the bounds of their authority’ and to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction vested in them and not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case for interference with the order impugned in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having held thus and the given facts and circumstances, I am of the view that to serve the ends of justice and to do complete justice between the parties, it is necessary to protect the lis by providing that respondents during the pendency of the suit shall not encumber or otherwise transfer by any mode the suit property. Ordered accordingly. 9. Ordered accordingly. 9. The directions aforesaid shall be in addition to and shall be read in continuation of directions contained in the impugned order. 10. The petition is disposed of, accordingly.