Virender Singh, Judge

Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment dated 3.1.2026, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 474 of 2023, titled as, ‘Chuni Lal versus Rakesh Kumar & anr.’.

2. Vide judgment dated 3.1.2026, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, by the petitioner, against order dated 25.4.2023, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in CMA No. 1154 of 2022, titled as, ‘Chuni Lal versus Rakesh Kumar & anr.’

3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

4. Brief facts, leading to filing the present petition, may be summed up, as under:

Plaintiff Chuni Lal has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, against the defendants, restraining them from digging any part, raising the construction, dispossessing the plaintiff and interfering in the suit land, in any ways, means and manner qua land, measuring khata No. 56 min, khatauni No. 92 min, khasra Nos. 100, 103, 107, land measuring 03-12-00 bighas, recorded as Shamlat Deh, which, according to him, is recorded in the joint possession of plaintiff, defendants and others, situated in village Damehra, Pargana Ajmerpur, tehsil Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P.(hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’), till the same is partitioned by metes and bounds.

4.1 Parties to the lis are real brothers. Defendant No. 1 is real brother of plaintiff, whereas, defendant No. 2 is wife of defendant No. 1.

5. Alongwith the suit, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has also been moved, seeking the following interim relief:

“It is therefore, respectfully prayed before the Hon'ble Court that the respondents may very kindly be restrained from digging any part, changing the nature, cutting the trees and excavating the suit land for the purpose of construction and occupy the best, specific and valuable portion of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 92min Khasra No. 100, 103, 107 land measuring 03-12-00 Bigha recorded as Sham Lat Deh and in the column of possession recorded as joint in possession of the applicant, respondents and others situated in village Damehra Pargna Ajmerpur Tehsil Bharari District Bilaspur (HP) till the final disposal of the suit either themselves or through their agents, servants, representatives or family members till the final disposal of the suit and justice be done.”

6. The said suit, as well as, the application has been contested by the defendants and the learned trial Court, vide order dated 25.4.2023 has dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

7. Against the said order, plaintiff has approached the learned First Appellate Court, by way of appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court.

8. Now, the plaintiff is before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By way of the present petition, the order passed by the learned trial Court, as upheld by the learned First Appellate Court, has been assailed, on the ground, that both the Courts below have not considered the true spirit of the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and wrongly dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, moved by the plaintiff.

9. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the order can be interfered with, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only to correct the jurisdictional error and to prevent the grave miscarriage of justice.

10. Before interfering with the orders, passed by the learned trial Court or the learned First Appellate Court, this Court, under Article 2