The court will not interfere in a petition under Article 227 unless there is a manifest miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 12.11.2020, passed by the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu in appeal filed against the order of the trial court passed in the application filed for interim relief by the plaintiff/respondent in the suit, on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

2. The respondent has appeared through counsel to contest the petition.

3. The main contention raised by Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order passed by the appellate court whereby the court has allowed the respondent-Sat Pal to carry agriculture pursuits in the land in question is prima facie illegal and contradictory to what has been held by the appellate court in earlier part of its order which is presently impugned in the writ petition. The order whereby the respondent has been allowed to carry agriculture pursuits in the suit land is illegal.

4. Mr. A.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the order passed by the learned appellate court does not call for any interference in the present petition as no miscarriage of justice has taken place through the impugned order. The appellate court has taken care of all the facts while passing the order impugned in the present petition.

5. It appears from the record that the petitioner herein filed a suit against the respondent herein and the respondent later on also preferred the suit against the present petitioner and both the suits are under consideration before the court of learned Ist Additional Munsiff (Forest Magistrate), Jammu. The dispute pertains to land measuring about 10 kanals and 12 marlas falling in Khasra No. 529 in Village Badsoo, Tehsil Dansal, District Jammu. Both the parties contend their ownership and possession over the suit land and have also filed documents in support of their respective claims.

6. The petitioner has taken the court through the order impugned to convince the court that the order is illegal. The appellate court has no doubt directed the parties to maintain status quo also on spot also while passing the impugned order. The appellate court has not taken the view that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and has only held that as the plaintiff has raised the claim in the suit property through his father the petitioner is required to be given opportunity to prove the case by leading evidence in the suit. It cannot be said that the appellate court while deciding the appeal has passed the directions contradictory to what the court has held in the earlier part of the impugned order. The order allowing the respondent to undertake agricultural activity does not otherwise mean that the respondent can raise any construction and create and claim any advantageous position for himself at the end of trial on the strength of the order passed in the appeal. The trial court is to decide the suit on the merits of the case and not on the basis of order impugned. The appellate court has passed the order after taking into consideration all aspects of the case.

7. This court will not ordinarily interfere in the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by the courts/Tribunals unless there is manifest miscarriage of justice in the order impugned in such a petition. The court will not exercise its power of superintendence under the said Article to correct a mistake of law or fact. This is what has been held by the hon'ble Apex court in Radhey Sham v. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. The court does not find extraordinary circumstances which call for interference in the order impugned by this court.

8. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.

9. The petitioner also contends that the revenue courts are also seized of the cases between the parties regarding the property in question. In case substantive di