The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to superintendence and cannot correct mere errors of law or fact, nor substitute its opinion for that of lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

CM (M) No. 112/2022:

1. The Petitioner, through the medium of this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , seeks setting aside of two Orders: one dated 25^th of April, 2022 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff, Pulwama (for short “the Trial Court”) in the Suit filed by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein titled ‘Bashir Ahmad Najar v. Bashir Ahmad Shah & Ors.’, whereby an application for interim relief filed by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein, along with the Suit, was dismissed; and the other dated 24^th of June, 2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Pulwama (Appellate Court) in the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein against the aforesaid Order dated 25^th of April, 2022 passed by the Trial Court, thereby dismissing the said appeal.

2. The case of the Petitioner herein, as emerges from the perusal of the file, is that he claims to be the owner in possession of a piece of land measuring 13 Marlas, comprising of Survey Nos. 1668 (03 Marlas) and 1669 (10 Marlas), situated at Koil, Pulwama. It is stated that the said land has been given to the Petitioner by way of gift from its erstwhile owner and that the Petitioner was using the pathway upto the said land from the said survey numbers, starting from the main road as his ingress and egress upto the said land, but the Respondents herein started raising construction on their land in such a manner that the said ingress and egress of the Petitioner got blocked.

3. The Petitioner further claims that he, although, made several requests to the Respondents not to block the said ingress and egress with respect to his land, but, the Respondents categorically refused to accede to the requests so made by the Petitioner, thereby forcing the Petitioner to approach the Revenue authorities concerned with a formal application, which, as on date, is pending before the Tehsildar, Pulwama. In the said application, a report is stated to have been sought by the Tehsildar concerned from the field agency, but despite certain initiatives having been taken by the Petitioner before the Revenue authorities, the Respondents herein did not stop the construction and continued to violate the easementary rights of the Petitioner.

4. Faced with the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner claims to have been constrained to approach the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Pulwama by way of a Suit for permanent injunction, which was assigned to the learned Trial Court for adjudication under law. On notice issued by the Trial Court, the Respondents, as Defendants, filed a detailed Written Statement in opposition to the said Suit filed by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein, whereafter, vide Order dated 25^th of April, 2022, the learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties with respect to grant or otherwise of the interim relief, dismissed the application for grant of interim relief filed by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner only on the basis of Written Statement filed by the Respondents herein and also while misinterpreting the ‘Iqrar Nama’ in the shape of agreement that 02 Marlas of land have been given to the Plaintiff/ Petitioner for ingress and egress, in addition to the land gifted to him, as such, the Plaintiff/ Petitioner is not entitled for utilization of the said pathway.

5. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid Order passed by the Trial Court, the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein filed a miscellaneous appeal against the same before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Pulwama, however, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide Order dated 24^th of June, 2022, primarily, on the ground that the case of the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein, does not fall within the purview of Section 15 of the Easementary Act and that there is no specific mention made by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner in his Suit that he is using the said pathway, for the last 20 years.

6. The Petitioner herein has, through the medium of the present Petition, a