Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction precludes re-appreciation of evidence or view substitution in temporary injunction disputes absent perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in lower courts' findings favouring recorded possessor's prima facie case.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

1) The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, restraining the petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit land, as well as the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.

2) The brief facts of the Case are that the respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 54 of 2021 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, seeking permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khata No. 53, Khasra No. 355/4, admeasuring 0.253 hectare, situated in Village Jhankaiya, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, claiming himself to be the recorded tenure holder and in possession thereof. Along with the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC alleging interference by the present petitioner in his peaceful possession. The petitioner contested the said application by filing objection, denying the respondent’s exclusive ownership and possession and raising objections regarding demarcation of the land. Upon receipt of objection and hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), vide order dated 19.05.2022, allowed the injunction application in favour of the respondent. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2022, which too was dismissed by the learned appellate court on 19.10.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have passed the impugned orders mechanically and without proper application of judicial mind. It is contended that the respondent is not the exclusive owner of the land in question and has failed to place any document of family partition on record, whereas the Khatauni itself reflects joint ownership. It is further submitted that the revenue map shows only one Khasra number, i.e., 355, and the same is not demarcated into sub-numbers such as 355/1, 355/2, 355/3 and 355/4. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is not possible to ascertain the exact location of Khasra No. 355/4, and in the absence of proper demarcation, no injunction could have been granted.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the respondent has suppressed material facts from the courts below and obtained injunction by misleading the court, which amounts to fraud. It is argued that settled law is that a party who approaches the court with unclean hands is not entitled to any equitable relief, interim or final. It is further urged that the appellate court has failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal and has merely affirmed the trial court’s order without independent application of mind. On these grounds, it is prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside.

5) The learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on the counter affidavit, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is an attempt to convert the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court into a second appellate jurisdiction. It is submitted that the respondent is a recorded tenure holder o