The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the court's supervisory jurisdiction under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the need for caution and restraint in exercising such powers.

1. Petitioner through the medium of this petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing order dated 21.04.2015 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu in Appeal titled National Welfare Foundation Trust, Sunjwan and another v. Akbar Ali (hereinafter for short as 'impugned order') by virtue of which order of injunction dated 21.07.2014 granted by 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu has been set aside on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.

2. As per averments made in the petition, it appears that the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit before lower Court for permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents 1 and 2 restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and from raising any sort of construction or creating any third party interest in the suit property, i.e., land measuring 20 kanals falling under Khasra No. 39 (11 kanals 03 marlas), 40 (08 kanals 11 marls) and 42 min (03 marlsa) situated at Sunjwan, Jammu to the extent of petitioner’s share, i.e., 10 kanals only. Along with Suit, an application for grant of Temporary Injunction was also filed and learned trial Court on the presentation of the Suit, after considering the material produced by the petitioner vide its order dated 29.05.2014 had directed both the parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the suit land.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement as well as objections and learned trial Court after considering written statement and objections besides documents relied upon by respondents 1 and 2 as well as material placed by petitioner on file vide its order dated 21.07.2014 made order dated 29.05.2014 absolute till the final disposal of the suit. Against this order, Appeal came to be filed before. 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jammu, which was allowed vide order dated 21.04.2015 and it is this order which is impugned in this petition. Hence, this petition on the grounds taken in it.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same is illegal, having been passed in violation of the principles governing the field. It is further contended that respondent No. 3 who had filed Appeal before the Appellate Court was not party before the trial Court nor any permission was obtained for filing the same. It is further contended that learned Appellate Court despite having knowledge that respondent No. 3 was not party before the trial Court passed the order impugned. It is also contended that order has been passed without application of mind and without examining the record.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents while arguing submitted that so far as plea of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 was not a party before the trial Court is not well founded because respondent No. 3 was arrayed as defendant in the Suit on an application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 18.07.2014. It is further contended that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned Order nor is it perverse as the same was based on the material available before the appellate Court, which include Khasra Girdawaris, Lease Deed, Order of Allotment of respondent Trust. Learned counsel further submitted that no case for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir has been disclosed in the petition nor it is made out. Learned counsel also submitted that mere dissatisfaction of a party with a decision or order of a Court or Tribunal is no ground for invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Learned counsel further submitted that supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked for setting aside an order passed by the trial Court and can be exercised only in a case where larger public interest is involved. He relied upon a