The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the principles and rules governing injunctions and exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in cases of gross and manifest failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner-Peer Rattan Nath Mahant, Peer Kho Shiv Mandir, Jamwant Guffa, Jammu has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India through Peer Rajinder Nath Peer Kho Shiv Mandir, Jammu challenging order dated 23.01.2023 (for short “impugned order”) passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Jammu (for short "the appellate court") in the appeal titled as “Shri Dilbagh vs. The Temple Peer Kho and another”.

2. The facts emerging from the record are as under :

The plaintiff/petitioner herein filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendant/ respondent herein seeking a decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction for restraining the defendant/respondent herein from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner herein qua land approximately 300 kanals covered under survey No. 345 min situated at Peer Kho Shiv Mandir, Jamwant Guffa, Jammu claiming to be under the continuous uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff/petitioner herein.

In the suit (supra) filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein, it has been averred that the defendant/ respondent herein came to be engaged as a labourer for cultivating the suit land, however, the defendant/respondent herein attempted to take forcible possession of the suit land which attempt was foiled whereafter the defendant/respondent herein continued illegal and arbitrary encroachment upon a parcel of the land in question for the purposes of raising some construction, which too came to be resisted by the plaintiff/petitioner herein and the defendant/ respondent herein even did not accede to the request of the plaintiff/petitioner herein for illegally desisting taking over the possession of the land in question instead the defendant/respondent herein on 03.11.2013 turned down the request of the plaintiff/petitioner herein made for refraining from encroaching upon the land and instead got a notice issued against the plaintiff/petitioner herein through his counsel claiming therein to be in possession of the land measuring 29 kanals under survey No. 345 min out of the land in question and that the plaintiff/ petitioner herein thus, apprehended that the defendant/respondent herein will make every effort to defeat the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner herein qua the land in question and would continue to interfere into the uninterrupted possession thereof, necessitating the filing of the suit.

Alongside the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner herein had filed an application for interim relief as well wherein the trial court passed an interim order on 13.11.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo whereafter upon the appearance of the defendant/respondent herein and after filing of the written statement as well as objections to the suit and the application for interim relief respectively, the trial court disposed of the interim application in terms of order dated 20.12.2019 restraining the defendant/respondent herein from causing any sort of interference over the suit property till final disposal of the main suit.

Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the trial court, the defendant/respondent herein preferred an appeal before the appellate court which appeal came to be disposed of in terms of the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 holding that the appeal has merit and consequently allowed the same while setting aside the orders of the trial court dated 13.11.2013 and 20.11.2019 and consequently dismissed the application for interim relief filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein accompanying the suit as well.

3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved of the order dated 23.01.2023 and the same is impugned in the instant petition on the grounds urged in the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the plaintiff/petitioner herein in the suit (supra) has claimed to be owner in possession of the land measuring 300 kanals covered under survey