Satyen Vaidya, J
1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 15.01.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Mandi, District Mandi,
H.P. in C.M.A. No.03/21 of 2021, whereby appeal of respondent filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) against order dated 22.07.2021, passed by learned
Trial Court in C.M.A. No.421 of 2021, was allowed and Cross-Objections preferred by the petitioner, were dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has filed Civil Suit No.255 of 2017,against respondent for following relief(s):-
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances mentioned above, suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed in
favour of plaintiff and against defendant and mutation No.1091 dated 11.08.2014 may kindly be declared as null and void ab-anitio and defendant or
her agent or servant or family members may kindly be permanently restrained from causing any short of interference in the peaceful possession of
plaintiff over suit land, and further be restrained from alienating or transferring or mortgaging the suit property in any manner. And/or any other relief,
to which this Ld. Court may deem fit in the fact and circumstances of the case, be also awarded in favour of plaintiff and justice be done.
3. The suit of the plaintiff is pending adjudication before learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi ( for short 'Trial Court').
4. Dispute has been raised by the petitioner in respect of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 37 min/40 min, Khasra No. 1212/88 and 146 kita 2
measuring 1014.27 Sq mtrs., situated in Mauza Khalyar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. (for short 'suit land'). Petitioner claims that the suit land
was purchased by the petitioner in the name of his holiness Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh Ji and in the name of Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat. As per
averments in the plaint, initially petitioner was a committee known as Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat Mandi, which subsequently came to be registered
as a Trust.
5. By way of Civil Suit No. 255 of 2017, petitioner has taken exception to mutation No. 1091, dated 11.08.2014, whereby, the suit land has been
recorded in the name of respondent being the legal heir of Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh Ji. The basis for such challenge is the claim of the petitioner to
the title of the suit land alongwith respondent. Petitioner also claims the possession of suit land.
6. Petitioner, alongwith the plaint had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Learned Trial Court had allowed the application
of the petitioner on 20.08.2020 and respondent was restrained from alienating the suit land till the disposal of the suit. Respondent did not challenge the
order dated 20.08.2020.
7. Another application for interim injunction came to be filed by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit, whereby a prayer was made to restrain
the respondent from changing the nature of suit land and raising construction thereon. Learned Trial Court allowed the application on 22.07.2021. The
parties were directed to maintain status quo qua construction, possession and interference over the suit land till the final disposal of the suit.
8. Aggrieved against the order dated 22.07.2021, passed by learned Trial Court in C.M.A. No. 421 of 2021, respondent preferred an appeal under
Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC, which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03/2021 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-1,
Mandi (for short 'Appellate Court'). Petitioner also preferred cross-objections against order dated 22.07.2021, passed by learned Trial Court, which
were registered as Cross Objections No. 569 of 2021. Learned Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 15.01.2022, allowed the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03/2021 of respondent and dismissed the Cross Objections No. 569 of 2021 filed by the petitioner.
9. Hence, this petition.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
11. The scope of this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restrictive and well defined. This Court in exercise
of aforesaid jurisdiction will not sit as Court of appeal to re-appreciate and reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under
challenge is based. The jurisdiction is to be exercised only to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse and violation of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Recently, in Grament Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position in
this behalf in following manner:-
“8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for
several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the
determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is
justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The
jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse,violation of fundamental
principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or
the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that
such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
9. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001)8 SCC 97 has observed:-
“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and
explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and
tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not
vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate
courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty
and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It
is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in
place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.
The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so
perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion,which the court or tribunal has come to.â€
12. Perusal of the plaint simply reveals that petitioner has claimed title to the suit land on the basis of purchase made in the name of the predecessor-
in-interest of respondent and also Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat Mandi. No details of the sale by virtue of which, petitioner claims to have purchase
the suit land, have been provided in the plaint. It is trite that pleadings are the foundation of Civil Suit. However, in the instant petition, petitioner has
placed on record document, Annexure P-9, which is a copy of sale deed dated 20.05.1996. This document recites that the suit land was sold for a
consideration of Rs. 53,000/- by Sh. Rattan Singh in favour of Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh, S/o late Sh. Satguru Pratap Singh Ji Maharaj, R/o Mandi
Town, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Addition of words ""Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat"" also appears to be made in hand after the name of father
of the purchaser. The words ""Naamdhari Sangat"" stands scored of. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended on the basis of aforesaid additional
incorporation of words that the sale deed was executed jointly in favour of Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh and Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat. Such
contention, however, does not prima facie appear to have any weight. Assuming that the words 'Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat' were part of original
sale deed, it does not transpire that 'Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat' was also a co-purchaser with Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh. The sellers have not
been described as Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh and Gurudwara Naamdhari Sangat. In any case, the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner as Annexure
P-9, is not the subject matter of challenge in the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner before learned Trial Court, no declaration has been sought with
respect to genuineness or otherwise of the contents of said sale deed dated 20.05.1996. In such view of the matter, no prima facie case existed in
favour of the petitioner to claim title and possession over the suit land and to seek restraint orders against respondent in respect of the suit land.
13. It is evident from the record that after execution of sale deed dated 20.05.1996, mutation No.625 was attested on 03.06.1996, whereby the suit
land was recorded to have been transferred by way of sale, exclusively in the name of Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh. The plaint is totally silent with
respect to mutation No. 625, dated 03.06.1996. The only challenge has been made to mutation No. 1091, dated 11.08.1994, which came to be attested
only after the death of Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh. Mutation or the entires in record of rights are not the title documents. Be that as it may, it is not
understandable, as to how, the petitioner can challenge mutation No. 1091, dated 11.08.1994, by way of Civil Suit, when mutation No. 625, dated
03.06.1996, recorded in favour of Satguru Shri Jagjeet Singh, had attained finality.
14. Perusal of impugned order passed by learned Appellate Court reveals that the same has been passed after taking into consideration material and
relevant aspects. The assessment of the factors such as existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, has correctly
been made on the basis of available material. No jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Appellate Court. The impugned order cannot
be said to be suffering from vice of perversity. The principle of equity, which is cardinal while deciding the grant of equitable relief of injunction, has
duly been considered.
15. Keeping in view the restrictive jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as discussed above, and also by analysing
the facts of the case, this Court does not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order is
affirmed.
16. The observation made in this order shall confine for the purposes of adjudication of this petition and shall not be construed to be expression of
opinion on the merits of the suit pending before learned trial court.
17. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
