ORDER : By way of instant petition, order dated 29.12.2021, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, in Civil Misc. Appeal no. 32/2021 has been assailed. 2. The Civil Misc. Appeal decided by learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, had arisen from an order dated 25.09.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.-II, Sundernagar, in CMA No. 270/2021 in Civil Suit No. 118/2021. 3. The parties hereto shall be referred by the same status as they held before the learned trial Court. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the defendants. 4. Plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants seeking following reliefs:- “1. Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining the defendants from digging the suit land, causing any sort of interference or change the nature of suit land by constructing a permanent structure in the shape of house over the suit land describe in para No.1 of the plaint in any manner may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. 2. In case the defendants succeed in raising construction or changing the nature of the suit land in any manner during the pendency of the suit then a decree for mandatory injunction by directing the defendants to restore the suit land in its original position be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” The suit was filed on the premise that the suit land detailed in para-1 of the plaint comprised in Khewat No.22 Min, Khatauni No.28 Min, Khasra Nos. 184 and 186 was jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the suit and other cosharers. The entire suit land was joint and partition had not been effected. The defendants had started making preparations for raising construction on a part of khasra No.186. It was also alleged that the defendants already had two houses in khasra No.186 and the new construction if allowed to be carried out, would be their third house. The conduct of the defendants in raising new construction was objected to on the ground that the same would adversely affect the rights of the plaintiffs. 5. Along with the suit, Civil Misc. Application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction on the suit land, till the pendency of the suit, was also filed. 6. Defendants are contesting the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Along with the suit, Civil Misc. Application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from raising construction on the suit land, till the pendency of the suit, was also filed. 6. Defendants are contesting the suit of the plaintiff. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the parties have much more joint land than the land detailed in para-1 of the plaint. The entire land in Khewat No.22 Min is stated to be about 84 bighas. The defendants have claimed their 1/8 share therein to the extent of 10-10-19 bighas. It is further submitted on behalf of the defendants that construction is being raised by them on less than two biswas of land. Plaintiff and his sons are stated to have constructed their separate houses on the suit land. 7. Learned trial Court allowed the application of plaintiff and directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of land bearing Khewat No.22 Min, Khatauni No.28 Min, Khasra Nos. 184 and 186, situated in Mohal Bahi/22, Tehsil Nihri, District Mandi, H.P. 8. In appeal, under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., has set aside the order passed by the learned trial court and the application of the plaintiff for interim injunction has been ordered to be dismissed. 9. I have heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for the defendants, and have also carefully perused the record. 10. The scope of this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restrictive and well defined. This Court in exercise of aforesaid jurisdiction will not sit as Court of appeal to reappreciate and reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. The jurisdiction is to be exercised only to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse and violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. Recently, in Grament Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position in this behalf in following manner:- “8. The jurisdiction is to be exercised only to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse and violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. Recently, in Grament Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position in this behalf in following manner:- “8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 9. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 11. Coming to the facts of the case, total joint land of parties is about 84 bighas, whereas plaintiff has filed suit in respect of only about 15 bighas, selecting khasra number 184 and 186 only. The share of the defendants in entire 84 bighas of joint land is stated to be more than 10 bighas 10 biswas. This fact has not been controverted. That being so, the plaintiff, in order to succeed in getting interim injunction against the defendants, had to specifically plead and prima facie satisfy the courts below that some exclusivity was attached to that portion of joint land which was being utilized by the defendants for raising construction or by doing so, the defendants would exceed their share. Undisputedly, there is nothing on record to suggest any of these pleas. 12. Further, the specific allegations in written statement of defendants is that the plaintiff and his three sons have constructed their separate houses on the suit land. Undisputedly, there is nothing on record to suggest any of these pleas. 12. Further, the specific allegations in written statement of defendants is that the plaintiff and his three sons have constructed their separate houses on the suit land. Perusal of jamabandi also reveals that area of about 14 biswas is under constructed houses in khasra number 186. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the entire constructed area of 14 biswas belongs to defendants or is occupied by them. 13. Learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, has specifically held that photographs Annexures P-2, P- 3, P-5 and P-7 placed on record of Civil Suit were of houses raised by the plaintiff and his family members and this fact was neither categorically denied by the plaintiff in the replication nor disputed during course of arguments. 14. This primarily weighed with learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar to hold that when plaintiff and his family members had already raised construction of so many houses, they had no right to object to the raising of construction by the defendants on an area which was less than two biswas. 15. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar in exercise of her lawful jurisdiction. The impugned order is based on facts available on record and hence it cannot be said to be suffering from vice of perversity. The principle of equity, which is cardinal while deciding the grant of equitable relief of injunction, has duly been considered. 16. Keeping in view the restrictive jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as discussed above, and also by analysing the facts of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order is affirmed. 17. All pending applications also stand disposed of.