The High Court should exercise its supervisory power with great care and caution, intervening only in cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.05.2017 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Budgam, whereby, in a Miscellaneous Appeal filed against order dated 16.11.2015 of learned Munsiff, Chadoora, the petitioner has been temporarily restrained from causing any interference in possession of the respondent over the suit property.

2. It appears that the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) before the Court of Munsiff, Chadoora. In the suit, the plaintiff has sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the property comprising land measuring 04 marlas falling under Khasra No.33-min situated at Zangibagh B. K. Pora, Budgam and the construction raised thereon.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court is that he is owner in possession of the suit property which he has purchased from its original owner, Shri Ghulam Hassan Sofi, by virtue sale deed registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar on 08.10.2010 and that he has constructed a single storeyed house on the said land. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant is pressurizing the plaintiff and trying to dispossess him from the suit property. According to the plaintiff, on 28.06.2015, the defendant along with his associates came to the suit property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom which compelled the plaintiff to file an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Sub Judge), Chadoora

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement, wherein it is claimed that he has purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and his son and in this regard, payments have been made through cheques and cash to the son of the plaintiff. The defendant further claims that he has raised a structure on the suit land whereafter he sold the same to one Mtr. Gulshan Ara. It is further averred in the written statement that because the plaintiff's son was involved in certain criminal activities, as such, the sale deed could not be executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The defendant further claims that he has now purchased the suit property back from Mtr. Gulshan Ara and paid an amount of Rs.2.20,000/to her out of the settled sale consideration of Rs.3,75,000/. It is claimed that the defendant is presently in actual physical possession of the suit property.

5. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed an application seeking temporary injunction against the defendant and the same was disposed of by the learned trial court vide its order dated 16.11.2015. The learned trial court while holding that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, observed that in case an order is not passed in favour of the plaintiff, he would suffer an irreparable loss. However, the learned trial court opined that on the basis of the material on record, it is not possible to determine the question of possession over the suit land and, as such, interim exparte order was modified and the parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property.

6. The aforesaid order of the trial court came to be challenged by the plaintiff by way of a miscellaneous appeal before the Court of District Judge, Budgam. The learned District Judge, Budgam, modified the order of the learned trial court and restrained the defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was observed by the learned Appellate Court that once the learned trial court came to a conclusion that prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff and in case interim order is not passed in his favour, he