JUDGMENT :

1. By medium of this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners/ Defendants in the Suit have assailed the validity of Order dated 26th of August, 2021 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff, Kupwara in the Suit filed by the Plaintiff/ Respondent herein titled ‘Sonaullah Shah v. Shahid Ahmad Lone & Ors.’, in terms whereof the learned trial Court has temporarily restrained the Petitioners/ Defendants from causing any sort of interference with regard to the possession and construction of residential house over the suit property measuring 01 Kanal and 10 Marlas covered under Survey No. 2024 situate at Awoora.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/ Defendants submitted that the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below is without jurisdiction in view of the fact that the Suit property is situated in village Awoora, which village falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Trehgam. It is further submitted that by passing the impugned Order, which is interim in nature, the learned trial Court has virtually granted the whole relief in favour of the Plaintiff/ Respondent that was prayed in the main Suit.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/ Defendants, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.

4. At the very outset, what requires to be stated herein this case is that the High Courts, under Article 227 of the Constitution, have little scope to interfere with the orders of the subordinate Courts as a matter of routine. This power cannot be taken as right of another appeal to the aggrieved party nor can this power be invoked to point out an error of law or fact in the order or decision of a subordinate Court. It, also, cannot be used to make out that the decision of the subordinate Court could have been or must have been other than what it actually was. The High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, ordinarily shows indulgence in the Orders passed by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it only to keep such Tribunals or Courts within the bounds of their authority, the object being to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts in exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them. That apart, the High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it; or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice; or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. The judgment of law cited by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/ Appellant, having been passed in a case involving different set of facts and circumstances, is distinguishable, as such, not applicable to the case in hand.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of the scope of the High Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, in a landmark judgment rendered in case titled ‘Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil’ reported as ‘2010 (8) SCC 329’, has formulated the following principles :

“(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, t