The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting conclusions of lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chamba, whereby the well reasoned order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chamba in Civil miscellaneous application No. 8 of 2024 titled Yogesh Kumar vs. Hujti has been set aside and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo qua nature of the suit property.

2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 3. The present respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The respondent had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. It is contended in the suit that insofar as the suit property is concerned, the parties to the lis i.e. present petitioner and respondent are joint owners in possession. Theproperty is stated to be un-partitioned inter se the co-sharers. The cause of action accrued in favour of the present respondent, when present petitioner started raising construction in December, 2023 on a portion of the suit land, which is joint.

4. In response thereto, the present petitioner averred that by virtue of a gift deed made by the original owner Smt. Amro Devi dated 05.02.2023, he became a co-owner on the suit land. In pursuance to the aforesaid gift deed, possession was delivered on the spot to the present petitioner. The present petitioner had obtained a demarcation from the Kanungo on 22.07.2023 qua the land of which he is raising construction.

5. It is further alleged in the response filed by the present petitioner that the father of the present respondent Sh. Madan Lal and his uncle Sh. Bhola Ram have already constructed their respective houses upon the suit land. The father of the plaintiff had raised construction upon the suit land despite not being a co-owner in the suit land. In order to legalize his possession, the present respondent had become a co-owner by virtue of a gift deed made by one of the owners Smt. Kaushlya Devi on 23.08.2023. .

6. Besides the aforesaid, it is further averred that insofar as the father of the respondent is concerned, on 06.01.2024, he moved an application before the Naib Tehsildar Dharwala to ascertain his possession. On his request, the Patwari visited the spot and after measurement, gave a report that Madal Lal (father of the respondent) had constructed a three storeyed Pucca house over the suit land and the uncle of the respondent had also raised construction upon the suit land. The aforesaid facts qua raising of construction by the father and uncle of the respondent had been concealed in the plaint filed by the present respondent before the Trial Court.

7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, taking into account the fact that the present respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands and the settled position of law that a co-owner cannot restrain another co-owner from raising construction unless it amounts to ouster prejudicial to the interest of the co-owner, the application filed for grant of interim relief was rejected by the trial Court.

8. The aforesaid well reasoned order passed by the trial Court was set aside by the 1^st Appellate Court and parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature of the suit property.

9. It is a well-settled position of law that an appeal against exercise of discretion is an appeal on principle. The Appellate Court therein will only interfere with a discretion if it is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant of interlocutory injunction. The Appellate Court will not re-assess the material and would not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage, it would have come to a contrary conclusion. In this respect, reference can be made to judgment reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 titled Wander Ltd. & Anr.