JUDGMENT : Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by District Judge, Uttarkashi in Misc. Civil Appeal No.2 of 2024 as well as the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Uttarkashi in Case No.60 of 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.60 of 2023 against the respondent nos.1 to 3 seeking a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction to demolish the wall constructed by respondent no.1 and not to create any hindrance in the suit property; that, along with the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial court on 22.12.2023 against which appeal was preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2024 passed by the District Judge, Uttarkashi. 3. He would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff is owner of property bearing khata khatauni no.00199, Fasli year 1423-1428 khasra no.4559 area 0.040 hectare, khasra no.4560, area 0.065 hectare and khasra no.4555 ba, area 0.0480 hectare situated at Village Nagadi Badi, Tehsil Chinyali Saur, District Uttarkashi and name of the petitioner/plaintiff is also recorded in the revenue records; that, in the year 1977 total land of 88 Nali and 11 Muthi was transferred by the petitioner/plaintiff to irrigation department for Maneri Bhali Phase II project; that, thereafter respondent no.3 transferred the said land in the name of respondent no.1; that, now respondent no.1 has started constructing a wall upon the property in question thereby restraining the petitioner/plaintiff to use the common path. 4. He would further submit that the trial court as well as the first appellate court has committed error in relying upon the submission made by the respondents/defendants that there is an alternative path for the petitioner/plaintiff for his ingress and egress. He would admit that there is an alternative route but it not motorable. 5. 4. He would further submit that the trial court as well as the first appellate court has committed error in relying upon the submission made by the respondents/defendants that there is an alternative path for the petitioner/plaintiff for his ingress and egress. He would admit that there is an alternative route but it not motorable. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that in the plaint itself at para-3 it has been stated that the petitioner/plaintiff had sold the land in question to the Irrigation Department for Maneri Bhali Phase II project and if this land had already been sold to the State then all the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff, if at all existed including any right to way or access or easement, etc., were also transferred to the respondents/defendants. Therefore, the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has rightly been rejected by the trial court and the appellate court. 6. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, this Court perused the material available on file. 7. In the impugned order, the trial court observed that there is no document available on record which could show the prima facie in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial court also opined that it is a matter of evidence that the disputed road was available for the movement of the petitioner/plaintiff since 1977. The appellate court also observed that there is no specific pleading made by the petitioner/plaintiff to show that the disputed road was being used by the petitioner/plaintiff for his easement and accordingly upheld the order of the trial court. In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court, which may require interference by this Court. 8. It is trite that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. 8. It is trite that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition. Same is hereby dismissed in limine. 10. No order as to costs.