1. The present petition is one under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and order passed by learned District Judge, Poonch dated 23.1.2012 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and the order passed by learned Sub Judge, Surankote dated 29th of July, 2010, dismissing the application for temporary injunction, has been upheld.

2. The main plea of the appellant before the court below was that the land falling under khasra No. 71 situate at village Buffliaz was not partitioned by meets and bounds and, therefore, the Lease Deed dated 13.3.1997 executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 in respect of land measuring 3 kanals out of khasra No. 71 was illegal.

3. The learned Sub Judge, Surankote, by virtue of order dated 8th of January, 2010 ordered maintenance of status quo regarding the suit property. However, subsequently, by virtue of order dated 29th of July, 2010, the said order was vacated and the application for interim injunction dismissed. It was against this order that an appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Poonch, which came to be dismissed by virtue of the order impugned dated 23rd of Jan, 2012, upholding the order passed by the court below.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The present writ petition against the order dated 23rd of Jan, 2012 is clearly not maintainable in view of the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under:-

"115. Revision.

(1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears.

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, or

(d) to have caused failure of justice,

the High Court may take such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

6. This court, in view of the above, therefore, cannot exercise its powers in terms of Section 115 and the petition to that extent is, therefore, not maintainable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said petition could be treated to be one under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which is analogous to Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. The scope of powers exercisable by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra.

8. In paragraph 49 of the judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Apex Court on a complete analysis of various judgments rendered by it, carved out the principles to be followed by the High Court's while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said paragraph reads as under:-

"On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. This history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of superintendence on the High Court's under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 22

Click Here to Read the rest of this document