The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow reappraisal of evidence but only addresses issues of perversity or arbitrariness in lower court orders.

J U D G M E N T

This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . The prayer herein is to ` set aside Ext.P7 order passed in CMA.23 of 2018 of the Principal Sub Court Irinjalakuda dated 31/1/2020 (arising out of Ext.P6 common order passed in IA.3171 of 2017 and IA.173 of 2018 in OS.873 of 2017 of the Munsiff Court Chalakudy dated 20/1/2018) in the interest of justice' .

2. Heard both sides in detail.

3. As per a common order in I.A.No.3171/2017,

I.A.173/2018 and I.A.174/2018 in O.S.No.873/2017, the learned Munsiff, Chalakudy, as per order dated 20.01.2018 passed the following orders:

“a. The respondent is hereby directed to restore the previous status of petition B schedule property leaving space of 10 feet from petition C schedule property. On failure the petitioner is at liberty to restore the previous status at the expense of the respondent, with due process of law.

b. The respondent is hereby restrained from

trespassing into petition A and B schedule properties without leaving any stripe of land having minimum width 10 feet at the level of petition B schedule way on the western and northerner side of petition B schedule way and from doing anything that may diminish the lateral support of petition B schedule way. The petitioner is hereby further restrained from excavating soil from petition C schedule property.

c. The petitioner is entitled to realize the costs of the petition.”

The petitioner herein, who was aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, filed CMA.23/2018 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda and the learned Sub Judge, after having appraised the materials available, dismissed the appeal confirming Ext.P6 order.

4. While challenging the concurrent findings entered into by the trial court as well as the appellate court, it is argued by the learned counsel for the original petitioner that the above orders were passed even without pleadings as to ownership of plaint B schedule property. In reply to this contention, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff referred para.2 of the plaint, the same reads as follows:

“2. The plaintiff most respectfully submits that the plaint `B' schedule property is the pathway leading to the plaint A schedule property which was formed on 19.06.1983 vide document No.2041/1983 of Chalakudy SRO. The copy of the above said document is produced herewith and the contents thereof may be treated as part of this plaint.”

The above extracted pleading would go to show that the plaintiff asserted ownership over plaint B schedule also along with A schedule.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the court below failed to appreciate the materials in its correct perspective and thereby went wrong in passing the impugned orders.

6. Refuting this contention, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner herein, who is the respondent/defendant, obstructed the lateral support available to B schedule pathway enjoyed by the plaintiff, the courts below ordered status quo ante after appreciating the available evidence prima facie, and this Court, while considering the merits of Ext.P7 order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , cannot reappreciate the evidence and this Court's power is limited to address perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order.

7. This legal position is not in dispute.

8. Going by the orders impugned, it could be noticed that apprehending escavation of soil from C schedule property so as to destroy the lateral support available to Plaint A schedule property and B schedule pathway, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit for restraining the defendant from doing so by way of a prohibitory injunction and an order of temporary injunction was also obtained. It was thereafter, the respondent removed earth from C schedule and thereby B schedule was destroyed. This is the context on whcih the court below passed the order as extracted above.

9. Having considered the crux of this matter in the above context, I cannot find any p