The court emphasized that it does not intend to interfere in the directions passed by the appellate court, except to the extent that may appear to be harsh towards the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

PUNEET GUPTA, J.

1. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit against the petitioners-defendants and along with the same application was also filed for interim relief which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 12.01.2022. The appeal filed against the said order by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and the order of the trial court was set aside by the appellate court vide order dated 12.02.2022. The appellate court directed the petitioners herein to maintain status quo with respect to the pathway and further directed the petitioners hereinto remove the wall in front of the gate of the appellant failing which it shall be removed at their own risk and cost.

2. The petitioners-defendants are particularly aggrieved of the directions whereby the petitioners have been directed to remove the wall raised in front of the gate of the respondent-plaintiff.

3. The respondent has appeared through counsel and has contested the present petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the appellate court has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the removal of the wall raised by the petitioners, in front of the gate of the respondent, though the same was raised when no interim direction was in force against the petitioners. The learned counsel has also taken the court through the pleadings and the photographs in order to show that the respondent has alternate path for the ingress and egress to approach his house.

5. The respondent has filed written objections to the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the order impugned in the petition as disputed questions of fact have been raised in the present petition. Moreover, the appellate court has passed the order in accordance with law.

6. This court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the order of the Court below or Tribunal merely because the Court or Tribunal has misdirected itself on the factual aspects of the case or even on law. It is only when there is manifest miscarriage of justice that this court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It appears from the record that the respondent-plaintiff has raised the plea in the suit that common pathway exists towards its southern side of his house and the respondents intend to block and encroach the same and also intend to damage his boundary wall illegally. The appellate court after going through the record has held that the parties to the suit are owners of adjoining pieces of land and the appellant-plaintiff has raised residential house on the plot owned by him and also has kept a gate of his house towards the southern side which now has been blocked by respondents by raising wall. The appellate court also held that the defendants had not objected to the keeping of the entrance by installing an iron gate towards southern side and accepted the user of the pathway. It is in the light of the aforesaid facts that the appellate court passed the impugned directions.

7. As mentioned above, the petitioners are mainly aggrieved of the directions passed by the appellate court for removal of the wall which was raised by the petitioners in front of the gate of the appellant when no interim directions were in force against the petitioners-defendants. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such direction could be issued by the appellate court as the wall was raised when no interim directions were in force cannot be accepted. The appellate court has taken into consideration that fact also while deciding the appeal. The observations of the appellate court also with regard to the pathway do not require any interference by this court. The court is not required to go deep and analyze the factual aspects of the case in the petitioner filed under section 227 of the Constitution. This court in exercis