Order :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

1. The instant petitions are arising out of one and the same immovable property comprising of 04 Kanal falling under Khasra No. 178 new situated at Village Chack Jaggar (Marh), Jammu, therefore, both the petitions are taken up for final disposal at this stage with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

OW 104 No.29/2015

1. Supervisory jurisdiction is being invoked by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution, while throwing challenge to orders dated 07.02.2013 and 06.02.2015 ( for brevity ‘impugned order’) passed by City Judge, Jammu ( for brevity ‘the trial court’) and 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu ( for brevity ‘appellate court’) in case titled ‘Parshotam Lal and others vs. Mohd. Rafiq and others.’

2. A civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction came to be filed by the respondents herein being plaintiffs before the trial court against the petitioners herein being defendants before the trial court, in respect of land claimed to have been purchased by the respondents herein pursuant to a sale deed dated 12.06.1981, measuring 04 Kanal falling under Khasra No. 51 min old (178 new) situated at Village Chack Jaggar (Marh) Tehsil & District, Jammu. The application for interim relief accompanying the suit came to be disposed of by the trial court in terms of order dated 07.12.2013, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering into the possession of the respondents herein over the suit land.

3. Aggrieved of the order dated 07.12.2013 passed by the trial court, petitioners herein challenged the same in an appeal before the appellate court, which appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2015 upholding the order of the trial court dated 07.12.2013.

4. The petitioners herein question both the order of the trial court and appellate court dated 07.12.1013 and 06.02.2015 in the instant petition, inter alia on the grounds that firstly the court below committed a grave illegality and did not appreciate three cardinal principles of law for grant of injunction and caused failure of justice and did not exercise jurisdiction vested in it and in fact failed to exercise jurisdiction, causing failure of justice while passing the impugned orders and that both the courts below committed grave illegality in the process and in fact did not appreciate the reports of the Revenue Field Agencies, Naib-Tehsildar and Tehsildar as also the provisions of Section 56 of the Specific Relief, Act and that the sale deed pursuant to which the respondents herein purchased the land in question in fact had been a paper sale deeds and that the respondents despite the execution of the sale deeds were never in possession of the land in question, when in fact the petitioners had been in possession of the land in question for more than four decades.

5. Per contra the respondents have filed objections, wherein the contention raised and grounds urged by the petitioners in the petition are resisted and controverted. The respondents in the objections have contended that the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable in its present form. It is further contended that the respondents have purchased the land in question validly and legally pursuant to sale deed dated 12.06.1981 and had been ever since in physical possession of the said land and that a mutation of ownership rights of the land in question has been attested in their favour vide mutation No. 125 dated 07.11.1981 and that upon settlement process the Khasra No. 178 came to be assigned to the land in question and that the possession of the respondents over the land is reflected in Khasra Girdawari since 1981 and that the respondents have been paying charges for irrigation of the land in question since 1981, after execution of the sale deeds and that the petitioners have no right, title, interest or concern with the land in question or to interfere thereof or else to encroach thereupon the same. The impugned orders are being defended by the respondents