S.C. Das, J.

1. The petitioners, named above, filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 19.05.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, or Division, Kailashahar, North Tripura District in Civil Misc Case No. 03/2011 arising out of Title Suit No. 5/ 2011 and the passed by learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5/2011, alleging that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division (trial Court) and the learned Additional District Judge (appellate Court) have utterly failed to exercise lawful jurisdiction vested/ conferred in them and thereby caused gross miscarriage of justice. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for petitioners and Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Rathor for the respondents.

2. The petitioners, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 5/2011 for declaration and injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailashahar; seeking following reliefs :

(A) Granting declaration that above said questioned proceeding (of arbitration) and questioned award (of arbitration) are illegal, ultravires, none-est and not binding upon the plaintiffs, having been vitiated by fraud and collusion and that defendants have no right to execute the same as against this plaintiffs;

(B) Granting and issuing perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further continuing/prosecuting aforesaid civil Misc. (execution) 39 of 2010 and from executing the question award;

(C) Granting all other reliefs deemed fit and proper; and

(D) Granting full cost of litigation.

Along with the plaint the plaintiff-petitioners filed a separate petition under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from executing the arbitral award, dated 26.03.2011, passed by sole Arbitrator in SGRCV No. 178/2009 and also prayed for an injunction in further proceeding of Civil Misc (Execution) No. 39/2010 in the Court of District Judge, North Tripura. The special petition, seeking temporary injunction, was registered as Civil Misc Case No. 3/2011 and by impugned judgment, dated 19.05.2011, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, rejected the prayer of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit and challenging that order the plaintiff-petitioners filed Civil Misc Appeal No. 5/2011 in the Court of District Judge and learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order, dated 15.07.2011, dismissed the appeal and hence the plaintiff- petitioners filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned orders, dated 19.05.2011 and 15.07.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar respectively on the ground that the Courts below failed to exercise their jurisdiction, according to law and the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below suffers from perversity.

3. The High Court's power of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law, and would be exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interfere. It cannot be used as appellate or revisional power. The power would not be exercised to correct an error of fact or of law, not being an error of law apparent on the face of the record, of an irregularity or illegality of procedure, unless such error affects the jurisdiction or involves a breach of principles of natural justice; or to re-apprise the evidence.

4. Keeping in mind the principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, let us first briefly narrate the facts of the case for fair appreciation and decision on the point posed by the petitioners.

The petitioners with a view to purchase a Bus vehicle took a loan of Rs. 5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakhs ten thousands) and the loan agreement No