ORDER : B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, J. 1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 08.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.171 of 2022 in O.S.No.1282 of 2019 by the learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. 2 . Petitioners herein are petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs and respondent No.3 is the respondent No.3-defendant No.4 in I.A.No.171 of 2022 in O.S.No.1282 of 2019. 3. Petitioners herein have filed suit in O.S.NO.1206 of 2014 for perpetual injunction against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein restraining them, their agents or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering with the existing two doors and Window on the Western side wall of the suit schedule property and from blocking the existing doorway of the petitioners herein (plaintiffs in O.S.NO.1206 of 2014) in the common passage towards western side. The suit schedule property is bearing Municipal No.15- 8-10, admeasuring 25.66 Square Yards, situated at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad, with boundaries as North: Stair case of property No.15-8-12, South: Siddiamber Bazar Raod, East: Neighbour’s Mulgi No.15-8-9 and West: Common passage. 4 . Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the defendants in O.S.No.1206 of 2014, filed their written statement contending that the petitioners are not entitled for perpetual injunction. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, have also filed suit in O.S.No.1282 of 2019 against the petitioners herein and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short GHMC) seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioners and respondent No.3 herein) from carrying out any construction in premises bearing shop No.15-8-10 Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad which is located towards South Eastern Side of the premises bearing Nos.15-8-11 and 15-8-12 and also sought for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.4 therein (GHMC) (Respondent No.3 herein) to dismantle the illegal and un-authorized construction undertaken by defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioners herein) in shop bearing No.15-8-10, situated at Siddiamber bazar, Hyderabad. The schedule property is shop bearing Municipal No.15- 8-10, which is located towards South Eastern side of premises bearing Municipal Nos.15-8-11 and 15-8-12. 6.1 Petitioners have filed I.A.No.171 of 2022 in O.S.No.1282 of 2019 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC) praying the learned trial Court to club O.S.No.1282 of 2019 with O.S.No.1206 of 2014 to lead common evidence in O.S.No.1206 of 2014. 6.1 Petitioners have filed I.A.No.171 of 2022 in O.S.No.1282 of 2019 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC) praying the learned trial Court to club O.S.No.1282 of 2019 with O.S.No.1206 of 2014 to lead common evidence in O.S.No.1206 of 2014. 6.2 It is averred in the affidavit that having allowed the Tr.O.P.No.905 of 2015 filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, O.S.No.1282 of 2019 is transfer to the Court of learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to try along with O.S.No.1206 of 2014 stating that since the subject property involved in both the suits and the documents to be marked are common, it is just and necessary to club O.S.No.1282 of 2019 with O.S.No.1206 of 2014, which is pending on the file of learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to lead common evidence. 7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their counter and contended that they have filed suit for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction against the petitioners and also against GHMC as such the parties in both the suits are not one and the same. The GHMC is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.1206 of 2014 and the relief prayed in O.S.No.1206 of 2014 is different from the relief prayed in O.S.No.1282 of 2019 and prayed to dismiss the application. 8. Learned trial Court after going through the material on record, dismissed the application, which is impugned in the CRP. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider that both the suits i.e., O.S.No.1282 of 2019 and O.S.No.1206 of 2014 are between the same parties arising out of the same schedule property. The learned trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application and ought to have clubbed both the suits i.e., O.S.No.1282 of 2019 and O.S.No.1206 of 2014 to lead common evidence to avoid conflicting decisions. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that by clubbing both the suits, the precious time of the Court would be saved and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In support of his contentions he relied on the decision in case of J. Ganapatha and others v. M/s.N.Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and others , 2025 INSC 395 . 10. Learned trial Court ought to have seen that by clubbing both the suits, the precious time of the Court would be saved and would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In support of his contentions he relied on the decision in case of J. Ganapatha and others v. M/s.N.Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and others , 2025 INSC 395 . 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioners’ suit is for perpetual injunction and the suit filed by them in O.S.No.1289 of 2019 is for mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction, which is comprehensive one. The suit for mandatory injunction cannot be clubbed with the suit for perpetual injunction. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani v Aurora Properties and Investments and another , (2018) 17 SCC 203 11 . Power of the High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (K.Valarmathi and Others V. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985). 12. Suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein in O.S.No.1289 of 2019 is for perpetual injunction and also for mandatory injunction. Prayer is to direct defendant No.4 (Respondent No.3 herein) to remove the illegal and un-authorized construction undertaken by defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioners herein) in shop bearing No.15-8-10, situated at Siddiamber bazar, Hyderabad and apart from that they also sought for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioners herein) from carrying out any construction in premises bearing shop No.15-8-10 Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. 13 . Whereas the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.1206 of 2014 is for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the defendants in the suit, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of existing two doors and window on the Western side wall of the suit schedule property and from blocking the existing doorway in the common passage towards Western side. 14. 14. In J. Ganapatha, the Supreme Court observed at para No.20, which reads as under: “The concept of moulding of relief refers to the ability of a court to modify or shape a relief sought by a party in a legal proceeding based on the circumstances of the case and the facts established after a full-fledged trial. The principle enables the court to grant appropriate remedies even if the relief requested in the pleading is not exact or could not be considered by the Court or changed circumstances have rendered the relief obsolete. The Court aims that justice is served while taking into account the evolving nature of a case. The above road map is pursued by a Court based on the notion of flexibility in relief, equitable jurisdiction, and is tempered by judicial discretion. When moulding the relief, the Court considers the issues and circumstances established during the full-fledged trial, looks at shortening the litigation, and then in its perspective, renders complete justice to the issue at hand. The converse of the above is that the moulded relief should not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice. The relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course.” 15. In Samir Narain Bhojwani (3 judge Bench), observed at para 24 reads as under: “24. That apart, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have committed fundamental error in applying the principle of moulding of relief which could at best be resorted to at the time of consideration of final relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage. The nature of order passed against the appellant is undeniably a mandatory order at an interlocutory stage. There is marked distinction between moulding of relief and granting mandatory relief at an interlocutory stage. As regards the latter, that can be granted only to restore the status quo and not to establish a new set of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit was instituted. This Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 , has had occasion to consider the circumstances warranting grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction. In paras 16 & 17, after analysing the legal precedents on the point as noticed in paras 11-15, the Court went on to observe as follows: (SCC pp. 126-27) "16. This Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC 117 , has had occasion to consider the circumstances warranting grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction. In paras 16 & 17, after analysing the legal precedents on the point as noticed in paras 11-15, the Court went on to observe as follows: (SCC pp. 126-27) "16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money. (3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion." 16 . As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the suit filed by them in O.S.No.1282 of 2019 is a comprehensive one and it cannot be clubbed with the suit for perpetual injunction. 17. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the suit filed by them in O.S.No.1282 of 2019 is a comprehensive one and it cannot be clubbed with the suit for perpetual injunction. 17. Learned trial Court has observed in its order that “As seen from the record parties to the suits filed suits against one another and in one suit defendant No.4/GHMC is made a party but no relief is claimed against defendant No.4. Both the suits filed for perpetual injunction on different cause of actions against one another. As both the suits are filed on different footing and as respondents/ defendants herein are not interested to lead common trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to club both the suits and give common finding as both parties are contesting on different footing. In the result, petition is dismissed. Both the parties in the respective suits are directed to commence trial by next date by producing evidence in respective suits.” 18. The Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani (Three Judges Bench) held that learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have committed fundamental error in applying the principle of moulding of relief which could at best be resorted to at the time of consideration of final relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage. 19. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is squarely applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the petitioners have made an application under Section 151 of CPC to club the suit for mandatory injunction to be tried along with suit for perpetual injunction. 20 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that to meet the ends of justice the prayer in the applications can be molded vice versa. In view of the judgment of the Three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani, submission of the petitioners counsel is negative. 21. The scope of High Court under Article 227 is limited in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, stated Supra. 22. Learned trial Court has assigned proper reasons and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners, no interference is called for. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same deserves no consideration and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. 23 . 22. Learned trial Court has assigned proper reasons and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners, no interference is called for. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same deserves no consideration and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. 23 . Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioners are given liberty to file appropriate application before the learned trial Court for clubbing the suit i.e., suit for perpetual injunction with the comprehensive suit for mandatory injunction. On such filing the learned trial Court shall decide it on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order/s if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/s shall stand closed.