•";;:7'?'^B;'.''^'ff'"; "E?s-c5!Sff'"SSS"'Si?'' HICH COU&T OF JU&ICATUKE. CHHATTISCARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petttion No.2454 of 2003 Saivau Shoukat AB and another -Versus- Smt. TijiaBai and others ORDER postfor 2nd Septembei', 2003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo fg^is-. A.F.^- r^'.': HIfiH COURT QF JUMCATURE, CHHATHS&ARH AT BIL.4SPUR Writ Petstion No.24S4 of 2003 PETETIONERS; 1. Saiyad Shoukat Ali, S/o. Saiyad Azmat Ali, aged about 45 years. 2. Sntt. Anjum Zarin, W/oSaiyad Shoukat Ali, aged about 40 years Both residents of Mosanganj, Bilaspur, Tehsil ond &istrict Bilaspur' (C.&.). Vsrsu^ RESPON&ENTS; 1. Smt. Tijia Bai, W/o Nandtai, aged abouf 75 years, Caste Satnami R/o yillage Umar'a, Tehsi! & Mungeli, &istr'ict ; gilaspur (C.S.). 2, Salla Seth, 5/o Limbudas Suryavanshi, a9ed about 55 years, R.'o vWage Mahka, Tehsil and District Janigir-Chompa (C.6.). 3. 5anjaya Kumar Banjare, S/o Basant Satnami, aged about 21 years, R/o village Tuisi, Tehsii Qnd Distt.; Roipur (C.S.). 4. Ujjain Prasad Bandhe, S/o Tijau Satnaml, aged about 32 yeors, R/o viliage Sokel, Tehsi! Mungeli, Ois+rict Silaspur (£.©.). 5. Laxmi NarayonTsndan/S/o Nemprasad, aged sbout 16 years, Minor',.through guardian-mother Tulsi bevi Satnaml, R/o viila9e. Jarhabhatd-Mqnjhwapara, Bilaspur, Tehsil & Distt.; Bilaspur (C.6.5. 6. M.A. Kddir, S/o A4.A. Sattar, aged about60 years. 7. S.S. Khalid, S/o M.A. Kadir, cged about 30 year-s. : 8. Nadim Pasha,S/oSheikh Ahsan Pasha, aged about 42 years, 6-8 are residehts of Mother Tsresa Ward Nc.IO, Talapara Road, Bilaspur, Tehsil and Oistr'ict Bitaspur. 9. Kamod, S/o Unknown, aged about 35 years, Contractor-, ft/o Tifra BaSti, Tehsil and District B'lospur (C.6.) ^-- aa .j 8B M'SJs^^-S 5hri K.A. Ansari, Advocate: For the petltloners. iefore! Honbie Shri L.C. Bhodoo, J. OR D ER (Passed on 2.°i&LSeptember, 2003) -^.. ^.<" Tne peti'tioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which they have challenged the order dated l-7-2003 paased by the learned 3 Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Misc. Appeai No. 10/2003 affirming the order dated 2-5-2003 passed by the 3''° Ciyil Judy, Class-II, iliaspur in Civii Suit No. 91-A/03. Facts ieadin9 to filin9 of this writ petition, in brief.are that Smt. TiJia Bal and 4 others who are respondents Nos. 1 To B In Thls peti+ion fiied a civii.suit aiong wi+h an. applicatjon under" Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. a9ainst the ps+itioners in the Court of 3ra Clvi! Judge, Class-II for permanent injunction in which the plaintiffs/respondents her-ein mentioned that on 18-4-2002 they purchased a piece of !and ad measuring 0.16 aere, bearin9 IChasr'a No. 85/61 through r'egistered sate deed from the legal hairs of 1-lorilal and dince purchase of land, they are Tn possession and their names have aiso been entered in the Revenue Reeord. Tne defendants in that suit/the petitioners herein have coilected cement, iron br'lcks and sand for constructlon on the land In question, whereas, in fact, the defendants' land falls in Khasra No. 75/71 which is not nsar to the land in question. TTie Khaaro number of the land in questlon is 85. They hwe also reported the matter to the police. Ths undlsputed foctsQre thot RampalQt, Ram Mali and Horila! were three brothers and th'ey were sons of Hardas Mourya and Hardas AAouryo was the owner of the land of Khasra Nos. 75,85 and others. The lond of Hardas was por'titioned among three sons nomely, Rampalat, ftdm Mali and 1-lor-iial. i-lorilai and Rampala+ "^-^ crfter partition of land sold thsir sharss of lcnd to different persons at different times. The petitioner No.l herein/ the defendeant in the suit purchased piece of land from Ranipato+ ad measuring 0.13 f (6050 sq. ft.), out of Kh<ssra No. 75/01 by a r'egistered sale deed dated 25-1-96, the petitionerj^o.2 again purchased a piece of land ad measuring 0.09 acrs i.e. 380Q sq. ft. adjacent to Khasra No. 75/01 through a registered sale deed dated 23-1-96. Thereafter in the year 2002 Smt. Ramshiia Devi the widow of Horlla!, Pramod and Purshottam (hls aons) and daughters Rukmani tSevi, Rcykumari and AAeenakumari daughtersof dsceased Horilal got recorded thsir namss in the Reysnus Record regording the left out land of Horiiai and they sold the iand to respondents in this petition and the plaintjff in the main suit ad meosur'lng 0.16 acre out of Khasra No. 85/02 throu9h a registered sale deed dated 3-5-2002- 4 . A perusa! of +he order of the trial Court and the Appellate Court rev'eais that the demarcation of the lond whlch was sold by Rampaiat to the pe+itioners herein in ths year 1996 and the land sold by The heirs of Hor'ila! to the respondent No.l and S is simllar i.e. boundaries shown in both the aale deeds ar'e simi!ar und that become the matter of diapute. Thc cade of the respondsn+s herein/plaintiff in the sujt is that the disputed land fal!s into Khasra No. 85 and belongs to them which they have purchased whereas, the case of the petitioners herein ts that Horilal In hls life time soid all his lands to various persons leaving behind the only portion of lond whieh was reserved for pasdage/r'ood snd that !and was stl!l standlng In the name of Holrilal and after the death of h'oriiai, the heir-s of Horilai hcve soid thst portion aiso. 5. Bofh the trial Court GS we!l os the .Appellote Court after hearim the parties and perusai of the saie deeds and other t'eievant documentd rsached to the eonclusion that bo+h +he par+ied are c'aiming thei" titte on the !and In question csnd that too through a r'egigtered sale deed which requires a thorough scrutiny. After recording ths evidsnce of the parties and in the circumstances the, •^ 7. trial Court soid that prima facie case is made out in favour of ths plaintiffs. Tne baiance of convenience and ittreparabie loss aiso lies in favour of granting iniunction and maintaining status quo on the spot and in i3ppeal the learned 3 Additional Oistrict Judge also affirmed the or'der. It is settled law that the trial Court tuhile considering the application under Order 39 Rule 1 A 2 before grantlng temporary injunction should satisfy that prima facie case is made out in favour of ths piaintiff and balance of convenience and irreparable !oss also lies In favour of The plaintlff, then and then ortly the injunction can be granted restraining the defendan+s ahd on appeal the Appsllate Court is entitled to interferewi+h the orde," oniy when the Court reached to the conclusion that order 9ranting temporary injunction is perverse, contrary to the facts or contrary to !aw. And In the ordinary course the .Appe!ldte Court!s not requir'ed to interfere u/ith the temporar'y injunction gran+ed by +he trial Court in a routine manner because the trial Court with whom the disputed matter is pending, after lookinginto the factg of the case and in order +o maintain the status guo on the situation and also to ensure that during the pendency of the suit the situation should not be aliowed to create which makes the filing of ths suit meanin9leas and ul+tma+ely it bscomss difficult for the tria! Court to grant final relief. 5o in one form the grant of temporQry injunction during the pendencyof+he suit is to prevent the defendonts not to create a sltuation which make the trial Caurt difficult to grant the final relief. In this case the appeila+e eourt also exofflined the orderd and documenti of the tria! Court and reached to the conclusion that the order pssseei by the trial Court grantin9 temporary injunction do not violate in the sett'ed principles of law and u!timate!y dismissed the same. How, question somes before this Court as +o what extent +his Court can interfere with the or'der passed by the trioi Cour't and the appeila+e Court i.e. aqainst the concurrent finding recorded by ths two courts, the jurisdiction of this Court to intsrfere with ' ^:: <" subordinort-e court white exercising jupisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fs thut the general prindples governing the jurisdiction of the i-ligh Court under Articie 227 of the Constitution of India are that the superintendence of the High Courf under Article 227 even axtent to the or'ea where no appeai or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law. Under this jurisdiction power does not vest the High Court with any unijmited pr'eroaative to corr-ect ail species of hardship or wrong declsions made within the llmits of The Jurisdiction of The court or* tribunai. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Hiqh Court can sst-asids or ignore the findings of fact of an infsrior court or tribunai if there was no evidence to justify such a conciusion and if no reasonabie person couid possibly have come to the conclusion whlsh t.he Court or trlbunal has eome to, or, In oTher words,it is a finding wnich was perverse in laiie. Tne High Court can interfere with the subordinate eourt'sorder only whsn ths Hiflh Court sfter scrutinlzing the record and order of the tria! Court reaches to the conclusion +hat the trial CourT/'subordina+e cour+s have exercised Their Jurlsdiction in an erroneous assumption or in excess of jurisdiction haa refused to exercise or whether' the subor'dinate court's order shows that there is an error of law apparsnt on the faee of the record. The subordinate court's order is without jurisdic+ion or- against the principfes of naturai justice, where +he violation of principles of naturat Justice ore found the order is ar'bitr'ary or capricious exercise of authority oc discretion and same is based on no ma+erial or Q pa+ent or flagr'an+ error in procedure and ulttmately if the order is a"owed to exist that will regult in manifest injustice and in this connection the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the matter of Surya &ev Rai Vs. Ram Chander iai & Ors. reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 465 that;- "Interiscutory orders passed by sour?s subordmate to the High Court against which the rernedy of revision has been excluded are open to chailenge and subject 1w eeri-iorari ond the supervisory Jurisdiction of +he High Court. In exercise of eertiopari or •^. ^ ^\ svpervisory jurisdiction 1+ie High Csurt'will not esvsr't itself Into a eourt of appeai and tndulge tn re- appreciat'on or evoluation of svidenee or correct errors in drawing inferences or correet errors of mere formai w technicai charocter. Where a subsrdinats csurt hes assumed a jurisdistion which it does nst have or has fatled to exercise a jupisdiction which It hos sr the jui'isdiction though avas'abte is beirg exereised in a monner not permitted by law and faiiure ofjustiee orgrow ir(justice has resuited, the High Court may step in to eaercise its supen/lsopy jurisdietion. and ths Hon'ble Ape^ Court in the mattsr of Stote, thrsugh Speeiai Ceil, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu ® Afshan Suru and Ors. reported in JT 2003 (4) SC 605 held that;- "Article 227 of the Constitution of Ihdia gives the High Court fhc powe" of supedntendence over ai! courts and tr'bunals throughout •Hie territories in relation te which it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdiction connot be limited o" fettered by ony Act of the Stote Legistatupe. The supervisory jur'isdiction ex+ends to keepirsg tte subordinate tr-ibunaSs within thc Simits of their outhority and to seeing that they obsy the low. The powers under Artieie 227 are wide and ean be used, ;^ to meet the ends of justlse. They cas be used to in+epfere even with an inrerlocu+ory order. However, the under Art-icSe 227 is a djseretionory power and it ia diffieult to attribute te on order of the High Court, such a source of powec. when the High Court' Itseif does nst in terms purport to exereise any such dlscretionary pewec. It is settle law thot this pawer of judieioi iuperintendence, under Arf'icle 227, snust be exercised sparinaly and only to kesp subordinate eourts ond Tribunat s within the bounds of their' authority and not to corr'ect mere errors. Further whsre 1+,e statutt bans the exereise of cevisional powers it woi^d requipe exceptionaS circumstances to wsn'ant iriterference under Article 227 of the Conatitution of India since •I'he power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent slntutory taw. It is settied law that the Jurisdictlon under Artiele 227 eouid not be exereised as the eloak of an In disguise"." 8. Now, if we examine the impugned orders in the 'light of the above prineiples of low, the facts of the present case, both the triai Court.and fhe /' l-'l W;7 /'" Appellate Court haye reached to the conclusion that the land in question upon whtch the petltioners herein /the defendants in the main suit claimed their title throuqh <2 registered sale deed and the respondents herein/plaintiff in +he mQJn suit also claimed Thelr tltle. AfTer perusal of the sale deeds both The courts r-eached to thff'conclusion that the demarcation shows in both the sale deeds ss almost similar and that refers to the disDuted mattsrs. 9. TTierefore, after recording the evidence of the porties the Court wili be able to decide that which party is ie9aiiy entitled for the land in question a@) in order to mainTaln the status quo and preserve The land in same posltlon the trial Court passed the temporary injunction, otherwise if the pati+ioners hersin are allowed to rdse the construction on the land then it wil.l be difficult for the tria! Court to pass final orde". 10. Therefore, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders of the Trla! Court and the Appellate Court. The courl^has neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor the order is comraiy to any settied principles of lcuy, therefore, thers ia no ground bsfore thid Court to intsrfere with the impugned orders unde," the extraordinaryjurisdiction under Articie 227 of the Consti+ution of India. This peti+jon has no force and the same is liable to be dismtesed and it Is dismlssed. >. Sd/- L.C.BhadoQ Judge