The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit a re-evaluation of evidence but only addresses substantial legal errors affecting justice.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge H By way of instant petition, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Civil Misc. Appeal No.9-CMA/14 of 2023 whereby the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by learned

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?

Civil Judge, Rajgarh in CMA No.340/2018 in Civil Suit No. 86/1 of 2018 has been modified.

2. Civil Suit No. 86/1 of 2018 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Sirmau.r has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 against the petitioners and others in respect of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.114min/270, Khasra Nos. 177, 179, 181 and 191 measuring 320.12 Sq. meters situated in Mohal Rajgarh-1, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P.

(for short, the suit land).

3. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as they hold before the learned trial Court.

4. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for possession and mesne profit with a further decree for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the co-owners of the suit land and the defendants are alleged to be the encroachers thereon. It is alleged that the defendants without any right, title or interest have clandestinely raised a five storey RCC structure on the suit land without the consent of the plaintiffs. On such premise, the decree for possession and mesne profit has been sought. Further, decree of mandatory injunction directing the defPendants to demolish the structure raised by them and to. handover the suit land to the plaintiffs, has also been prayed for.

5. The defendants are claiming to be in permissive possession of the suit land. Their contention is that the original defendant No.3 in the suit namely Shanti Swarup had transferred 3 biswas and 5 biswas of land to one Pritam Singh for construction in the year 1981 and 1993 respectively. It is further stated that said Pritam Singh had raised construction of two houses in the year 1982 and 2003. The electricity meters were stated to have been installed in the name of Pritam Singh and his wife Niranjan Kaur, respectively. After the death of Pritam HSingh his wife Niranjan Kaur is alleged to have executed an agreement to sell with respect to the suit land in favour of defendants in lieu of consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and, thus, possession of the suit land is claimed to have been handed over to the defendants. They also claim that even Shanti Swarup had executed an agreement to sell with the defendants with respect to land measuring 16 x 20 feet in the month of May, 2015 on receipt of sale consideration to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.

In this respect, the defendants claim to be inP settled possession of the suit land. Their further case is. that after being put into possession of the suit land, they have raised five storied structure on the suit land after demolishing the old house constructed by Pritam Singh.

6. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim injunction against the defendants with the prayer to restrain them from raising any further construction and from alienating or encumbering the suit land in any manner whatsoever.

7. Learned trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiffs partly and restrained the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit land till final disposal of the suit. The plaintiffs filed appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of CPC against the order passed by learned trial Court. The appeal of the plaintiffs has succeeded and learned Appellate Court vide impugned order, has restrained the defendants not only from alienating or encumbering the suit land, but also from raising any further construction thereon.

8. I have heard