JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 5.3.2003 and 19.7.2004 contained in Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to dispossess the petitioner from the shop in dispute.
2. I have heard Shri Akhlaq Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Asit Chaturvedi for the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the land on which the disputed shop is constructed belonged to him and he obtained it 50 years ago from the then Zamindar of Takiya Kalan Bharaich on payment of Rs. 20 as nazrana and he was given permission to construct the shop over it and since then he was in possession over the shop in question. His possession was threatened by the opposite parties. Therefore, he filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahraich and during the pendency of the suit ; he also moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. It was opposed by the Railway Department by filing objection through Annexure-2. It was pleaded by the railways that the land belongs to Union of India and a case for eviction of the petitioner being unauthorized occupant is pending since 1988 under the Public Premises Act and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for any injunction. The learned civil Judge dismissed the application for injunction vide order dated 5.3.2003 (Annexure-3). The petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 19.7.2004 (Annexure-4).
4. The petitioner had not filed the document to establish his title before the learned Civil Judge. During appeal, he filed a photostat copy of the so-called izazatnama, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. I have seen the so-called izazatnama. I am of the view that this izazatnama does not confer any right on the petitioner because through which a petitioner was given only to get the registered document executed and it was made clear that if, the registered document is not executed, it will not be operative. After seeing this document, the two courts below have recorded all the findings against the petitioner. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the findings recorded by the two courts below.
5. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., JT 2003 (6) SC 465, it has been held by the Supreme Court that under Article 226 of Constitution of India a writ of certiorari is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted, (i) without jurisdiction or, (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
6. In the instant case, I do not find any gross errors of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice or law in passing the impugned orders. There is neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience nor any irreparable loss if, the injunction is not granted in favour of the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.