ORDER : By way of instant petition, order dated 25.07.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 10-14 of 2021 has been assailed. 2. The Civil Misc. Appeal decided by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, had arisen from an order dated 06.04.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.-3, Ghumarwin, in CMA No. 171-06/2022. 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:- “i) Decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from digging the land, raising any type of construction, cutting the trees, occupying the valuable and specific portion of the suit land, changing the nature of the land measuring 2-5 bighas, comprised in Khasra Numbers 5, number Khata/Khatoni 20 min/23 situated in Village Nagroun, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in any manner either personally or through their family members, agents, servants, representatives and assignees, until the partition of the suit land by metes and bounds by the competent revenue authority amongst cosharers, be passed; 2. In the alternative, decree for joint possession by demolishing the construction if any raised or for the restoration of the land on its original position, if any constructed by defendant during pendency of the suit, over the suit land or any part of it exceeding the share forcibly, be passed.” 5. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the premises that suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 21min/23, Khasra No.5, measuring 205 bighas, situated in Village Nagroun, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., is jointly owned by the parties to the suit and other co-sharers. As per plaintiff, the suit land was joint and partition had not been effected. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants were threatening to raise construction forcibly on the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff. The conduct of defendants in raising construction was objected on the ground that the same would adversely affect the rights of the plaintiff. 6. Along with the Civil 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. 7. Defendants are contesting the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Along with the Civil 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. 7. 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 as suit land by the plaintiff. The defendants have claimed much more share in the entire land than being utilized by them for the time being. Defendants have also raised plea of private partition between the parties. It has also been specifically averred that defendant No.1 had an old cowshed which was being reconstructed along with the reconstruction of old toilet and WC. A retaining wall was also sought to be raised only for the purposes of protection of already existing house of defendant No.1. It is also alleged that plaintiff has his double storeyed house on the joint land and he is also in possession of an old house inherited by him and defendants from their father. Plaintiff is stated to have reconstructed the first floor of the inherited house without any objection from defendants. As per defendants, total area in occupation of defendant No.1 for his house and cowshed, toilet etc., is not more than four biswas, whereas the defendants have much more share in the entire suit land. 8. Learned trial Court dismissed the application of plaintiff. An appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, was preferred by plaintiff, which also stands dismissed vide impuged order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. 9. I have heard Mr. Vijay Bhatia, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, 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 re-appreciate 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. This Court in exercise of aforesaid jurisdiction will not sit as Court of appeal to re-appreciate 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. 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 re-appreciate, 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. 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 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 more than 16 hectares. This fact has not been controverted by the plaintiff, rather he himself has placed on record jamabandi for khasra Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7, showing total area of joint land 15-19-00 hectares. That being so, 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, defendants would exceed to their share. That being so, 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, defendants would exceed to their share. Undisputedly, there is nothing on record to suggest any of these pleas. 12. Further, the specific allegation in written statement of defendants is that the plaintiff already has two houses on the joint land, which factual position has not been controverted by the plaintiff. 13. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plea for interim injunction raised by plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands. He had not disclosed correct and true factual position. Reliance has also been placed on photographs showing the houses of plaintiff on joint land. What weighed with the Appellate Court is that when plaintiff has already raised construction of his house, he has no right to object the raising of construction by defendants which was less than their recorded share. 14. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, in exercise of his 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. 15. Another fact which needs notice is that plaintiff though had not mentioned about the private partition inter se the parties in the plaint, however, in replication he admitted such fact and raised the plea that defendants were not adhering to private partition. The said conduct of plaintiff again disentitles him from grant of discretionary relief in his favour. The plaintiff has suppressed material facts in the plaint. 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.