Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
(2.) PETITIONER 's application for grant of ad interim injunction under Order XXXIV Rule 1 C.P.C. in Original Suit No. 02 of 2011 has been rejected by Civil Judge (Junior Division), East, Ballia vide order dated 21.3.2014 and there against his Misc. Appeal No. 78 of 2014 has also been dismissed by District Judge, Ballia vide order dated 23.8.2014. Both the Courts below have found that petitioner could not show prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour and, therefore, at that stage, they did not find expedient to grant ad interim injunction to the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner also could not print out any manifest error apparent on the face of record so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
(3.) IN supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.;