JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. A state of divergence of the decisions of the trial court of learned Munsiff, Jammu and of the appellate court of the learned District Judge, Jammu with respect to disposal of a temporary injunction application, under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, (in short, CPC), in a civil suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 against two persons i.e., the petitioner herein and Mst. Zohra Bano, proforma respondent herein, presents itself for scrutiny and examination sought from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with the then in force Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

3. The present petition came to be filed on 10.09.2013. It has awaited almost nine years for getting its disposal meaning thereby issue of a temporary injunction in a civil suit has not taken final rest from April, 2012 till ongoing 2022 and that sets an exigency of its kind in the adjudication of the present petition.

4. Factual context of the matter feeding the present petition needs to be set out at the outset before taking the call as to whether the case is the one in which this Court shall spare its supervisory indulgence under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

5. The genesis of the dispute in the civil suit, to put it in its barest form, relates to the identity of a plot of land firstly in terms of its revenue demarcation obtaining in the sale deed of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the one hand and the sale deed of the petitioner on the other hand and secondly as to the actual khasra location of the plot of land in dispute. In fact, it would be a safer observation to make that both sides to the dispute find themselves converged to the same plot of land with conflict as to which is the khasra number of the said plot in dispute.

6. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 claim to be joint purchaser of a residential plot of land measuring 14.5 marlas by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.04.1999 executed by the erstwhile recorded owner Abdul Gani, acting through attorney holder Mohan Lal, for a sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. In the said sale deed, the mention of said plot of land is that it is in khasra no. 215 min, khata no. 161 and khewat no. 13 falling in revenue village Narwal Bala, Jammu. From the record of the file it is gatherable that a mutation no. 698/Jeem dated 11/06/2007 has also been attested w.r.t the sale transaction so effected in terms of sale deed above referred.

7. The above named attorney holder Mohan Lal is the respondent no. 1 in the present petition.

8. Same very above named person Mohan Lal was also an attorney holder of one Rattan Lal with respect to a plot of land measuring 15 marlas in khasra no. 225, khata no. 164 min and khewat no. 14 falling in revenue village Narwal Bala, tehsil and district Jammu. A sale deed dated 17.04.2001 for the sale of said plot of land was executed in favour of Mst. Zohra Bano, the proforma respondent, by the recorded owner Rattan Lal through attorney holder said Mohan Lal and for this sale transaction also mutation number 1657 has been attested.

9. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Mst. Zohra Bano, the proforma respondent, did not come across in any conflict in terms of the location of the plot of land so purchased by them at their respective end. Mst. Zohra Bano, the proforma respondent, came to sell her 15 marlas of plot of land in khasra no which came to be mentioned 225 min to the petitioner herein by virtue of a sale deed dated 28.02.2011 that is after being the owner for almost 10 years. Thus, while in her sale deed from Rattan Lal, the location of plot was in khasra number 225 but when it came to be a sale deed by Mst. Zohra Bano, the proforma respondent, to the petitioner the khasra number mentioned is khasra number 225 min. It is not forthcoming from the record as to whether the petitioner has got mutation attested in his favour in terms of sale deed so made.

10. It seems that it was upon co