Point of Law: Civil Law – Claim of title of property – High Court’s jurisdiction is to be exercised only to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse and violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 15.01.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in C.M.A. No.03/21 of 2021, whereby appeal of respondent filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) against order dated 22.07.2021, passed by learned Trial Court in C.M.A. No.421 of 2021, was allowed and Cross-Objections preferred by the petitioner, were dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.255 of 2017,against respondent for following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above, suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant and mutation No.1091 dated 11.08.2014 may kindly be declared as null and void abanitio and defendant or her agent or servant or family members may kindly be permanently restrained from causing any short of interference in the peaceful possession of plaintiff over suit land, and further be restrained from alienating or transferring or mortgaging the suit property in any manner. And/or any other relief, to which this Ld. Court may deem fit in the fact and circumstances of the case, be also awarded in favour of plaintiff and justice be done."

3. The suit of the plaintiff is pending adjudication before learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi ( for short 'Trial Court').

4. Dispute has been raised by the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 37 min/40 min, Khasra No. 1212/88 and 146 kita 2 measuring 1014.27 Sq mtrs., situated in Mauza Khalyar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (for short 'suit land'). Petitioner claims that the suit land was purchased by the petitioner in the name of his holiness Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh Ji and in the name of Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat. As per averments in the plaint, initially petitioner was a committee known as Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat Mandi, which subsequently came to be registered as a Trust.

5. By way of Civil Suit No. 255 of 2017, petitioner has taken exception to mutation No. 1091, dated 11.08.2014, whereby, the suit land has been recorded in the name of respondent being the legal heir of Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh Ji. The basis for such challenge is the claim of the petitioner to the title of the suit land alongwith respondent. Petitioner also claims the possession of suit land.

6. Petitioner, alongwith the plaint had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Learned Trial Court had allowed the application of the petitioner on 20.08.2020 and respondent was restrained from alienating the suit land till the disposal of the suit. Respondent did not challenge the order dated 20.08.2020.

7. Another application for interim injunction came to be filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, whereby a prayer was made to restrain the respondent from changing the nature of suit land and raising construction thereon. Learned Trial Court allowed the application on 22.07.2021. The parties were directed to maintain status quo qua construction, possession and interference over the suit land till the final disposal of the suit.

8. Aggrieved against the order dated 22.07.2021, passed by learned Trial Court in C.M.A. No. 421 of 2021, respondent preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03/2021 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1, Mandi (for short 'Appellate Court'). Petitioner also preferred cross-objections against order dated 22.07.2021, passed by learned Trial Court, which were registered as Cross Objections No. 569 of 2021. Learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 15.01.2022, allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03/2021 of respondent and dismissed the Cross Objections No. 569 of 2021 filed by the petitioner.

9. Hence, this petition.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

11. The scope of this Court to