The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not correcting errors of law or fact.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

The present petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the present petitioner on 13.09.2022. In the suit so filed, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC had been filed by the present petitioner seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating, creating charge, changing the nature and dispossessing the petitioner from the suit land.

2. In the application so filed, it was categorically averred that the suit property is ancestral in nature. Hence, by virtue of a registered Will bearing No.64 dated 03.07.1984, deceased Narotam could not have executed the same in favour of respondent No.1.

3. Per contra, in the response filed, it was categorically denied that the suit property is ancestral coparcenary property. It had been contested by the respondents that the suit landstood partitioned through the concerned competent revenue Court and therefore, there is no question of the alleged suit land being joint. Instrument of partition had been prepared on 21.05.2022 and the same had been given effect to. It was categorically averred that the share of deceased Narotam had been inherited by respondent No.1 on the basis of last genuine registered Will bearing No.64 dated 03.07.1984.

4. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court was of the view that the averments qua the suit land being ancestral, joint and the fact that the share of deceased Narotam had been inherited by respondent No.1 on the basis of a Registered Will, were all required to be provided by leading evidence. In view thereof, the trial Court by an interim injunction dated 28.10.2022 restrained the respondents from alienating, creating any charge over the suit land and changing the nature of the suit land by dispossessing the petitioner.

5. On appeal, the interim order so passed by the trial Court was vacated. The First Appellate Court, in terms of Section 41(a) of the Specific Relief Act, was of the view that by virtue of the interim order passed, the present respondents had been restrained from prosecuting the partition proceedings pending before the Revenue Court and taking it to its logical conclusion.

6. Other than the aforesaid, prima face it was of the view that the property inherited by deceased Narotam from his parental ancestors was his absolute property and not ancestral as regard other relations. Besides the aforesaid, the First Appellate Court was of the view that insofar as Registered Will dated 03.07.1984 is concerned, it is deemed date of knowledge, is the date of its registration. Other than the aforesaid, Narotam died in the year 1997. Inheritance never remains in abeyance, therefore, filing of the suit after 25 years of the death of deceased Narotam, as per the First Appellate Court also disentitled the present petitioner from claiming an interim injunction. In the aforesaid circumstance, interim order passed by the trial Court was vacated.

7. The first appeal filed, in the case at hand, is an appeal on principle, against the exercise of discretion exercised by the trial Court. From a perusal of the same, it is evident that interference in the order passed by the trial Court by the First Appellate Court is based on well settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interim injunctions and the fact that the trial Court in passing the order had ignored relevant provisions of law. In this respect, reference can be made to judgment reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 titled Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., decided on 26.04.1990, the relevant extract is reproduced as under:-

“…...14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arb