The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or legal errors unless they result in a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Bipin Chander Negi, J.

1. Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2024, passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2-D/XIV/2024, by the Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the impugned order appended along with the present petition.

3. The present petitioner is plaintiff before the trial Court. The suit land is admitted to be joint inter se the parties. The same has not been partitioned. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court is that respondent/defendant with a view to grab the most valuable portion of the land is in hell-bent to uproot the ancestral house, cut the trees standing thereupon and to raise construction thereupon.

4. As per the respondent/defendant, vide Will dated 18.04.1992, one Shridhar, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties had willed an old abadi/house along with cow shed in favour of the respondent/defendant and similarly Shridhar had willed land in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, whereupon they had constructed their house. Mutation No.48 qua Will dated 18.04.1992 was sanctioned on 18.11.1992. The said mutation was upheld by the District Collector (ADM) Kangra, vide order dated 20.08.2011.

5. During the last rains, a part of the old abadi/house of the respondent/defendant had become unsafe for human dwelling and therefore, on the recommendation of the Welfare Department, funds were allotted to the respondent/defendant by the Gram Panchayat for the renovation of the collapsed portion. The photographs of the old/abadi produced by the parties revealed that the house is in dilapidated condition. The respondent/defendant has also produced certificate dated 14.11.2022 issued by the Pradhan Gram Panchayat Dadham to the effect that in previous rainy season, the house of the defendant/respondent had completely been damaged and the same requires repair, wherefor money had been sanctioned by the Government.

6. With respect to the grant made by the government, a Certificate dated 20.12.2023 issued by the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Dadham had been produced, wherein it had been stated that for not constructing fallen house within the stipulated time, grant had been cancelled. However, subsequently a fresh grant had been sanctioned and a sum of Rs.50,000/- had been sanctioned for construction of the house. The same is evident from letter dated 16.09.2022, issued by the Tehsil Welfare Officer Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P.

7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court had ordered status quo to be maintained qua nature, construction and possession of the suit land. However, on appeal and keeping in view the said well settled-position of law that a mere construction by the defendant/respondent (one of the co-sharer in the suit land) alone would not entitle the plaintiff/petitioner to seek injunction, especially when the plaintiff has not specified the alleged best, valuable portion of the suit land and has not pleaded that the proposed construction would amount to his ouster from the suit land and/or would adversely affect his possession or enjoyment or accustomed user thereof, the status quo order passed by the trial Court was vacated.

8. The appeal in the case at hand against exercise of discretion by the trial Court is an appeal on principle. One of the grounds available for interference would be ignoring settled principles of law for grant of an interlocutory injunction. On this account, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

9. In this respect, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727, titled Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. The relevant extract is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

“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