The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court can overturn lower court decisions if those decisions reflect procedural errors or ignore critical facts pertaining to ownership and possession.

JUDGEMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and scanned the record.

2. Through this petition an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vesting in terms of article 227 of the Constitution of India is being solicited by the petitioner for examining the legal fitness of exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu in adjudicating a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 against an order of rejection of temporary injunction application maintained under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 in a civil suit of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib before the court of learned Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu. The two courts are tangent in terms of their respective adjudication with respect to an interlocutory injunctory matter.

3. Examination of facts in/of a case, be it civil or criminal, before a court of law, be it at trial or first appellate stage, is meant and expected to be both at macro as well as micro level on the part of a given court. For this, a perpetual principle to be referred to and reminded is “fact first and reasoning later”. The words of John H. Langbein, Professor of Law & History “find the facts and law is easy,” serves a dictum which admits full application in any given case before a court of law. In the event of a lapse/omission on the part of a given court of law in discerning the full facts of a given case, the lengthening of litigation is rendered simply unavoidable as the party feeling prejudiced by the lapse and/or omission on the part of the court, in terms of its obligation to see and discern the facts clearly, is left with no other option but to climb up the litigation ladder to exhaust any next available remedy, direct or remote, to get rid of the said prejudice lest it causes serious injury to the rights of a party involved in a given lis. On the other hand, if a court of law, in a given case, comes up with exposure and examination of full facts and thereupon applies the legal reasoning and the law as applicable, then the scope for a aggrieved litigant/party aggrieved to challenge such an adjudication is sure to be more on a disincentive side rather than on an incentive side. Thus, discernment is an essentiality in application of judicial mind.

4. The present case is one where the lower appellate court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, restricted as well as constricted its gaze to see thoroughly at and through the facts of the case in dealing with the appeal of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh against an impugned interlocutory order passed by the trial court of learned Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu and that brings the engagement of this Court at the call of the petitioner which cannot be put off by mere fact that the impugned order being that of a superior court, as against the original order of the trial court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), is worthy of a readymade reliance from this Court acting on its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is an admitted position of fact in the present case that the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob was an owner in possession of a big chunk of land comprised in khasra No. 123 in Mauza Estate Channi Kamala, Jammu, out of which he had come to carve out residential plots for the purpose of sale.

6. By virtue of an agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992 made by and between the r