1. This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Court (First Additional District Judge, Dhar) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.08/2022, whereby the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the Trial Court (Second Additional Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhar) granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC in Civil Suit No. 99-A/2020 was set aside.

2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract, declaration, and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing Survey No. 10/1, admeasuring 1.770 hectares, situated at Village Himmatgarh, Tehsil and District Dhar. The suit is premised on a registered agreement to sell dated 16.08.2019 executed by the deceased Jitendra Rathore (predecessor of respondents Nos. 1 to 3) in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 17,50,000/-. The petitioner avers that partial payments aggregating to Rs. 14,50,000/- were made via cheques and cash, possession was handed over, and the agreement was duly registered. Following the death of Jitendra Rathore on 24.08.2020, the respondents (legal heirs of Jitendra Rathore) failed to execute the sale deed despite notice dated 03.10.2020, leading to the suit.

3. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC (IA No. 1/2021) seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or transferring the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The Trial Court, vide order dated 07.03.2022, allowed the application, finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner based on the registered agreement, payment proofs (cheques and bank statements), Patwari report confirming possession, and the petitioner's readiness to perform. However, the Trial Court not only restrained alienation but also prohibited interference with the suit land, thereby extending relief to protect possession, which was not explicitly sought in IA No. 1/2021.

4. Aggrieved, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. The Appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 03.09.2022, allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's order in entirety. The Appellate Court held that the Trial Court exceeded the scope of the prayer in IA No.1/2021 by granting relief qua possession/interference, which was not pleaded therein (noting that an earlier IA No.1/2020 seeking such relief was withdrawn on 14.01.2021). It further observed discrepancies in the agreement (post-registration interpolations regarding payments and possession not reflected in the certified copy), absence of prima facie case for possession in undivided joint family property without partition, and suspicion of forgery. To balance equities, the Appellate Court accepted the respondents' oral undertaking not to alienate the suit land during the suit's pendency. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Court committed grave illegality by reassessing the material and substituting its discretion contrary to the principles laid down in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., [1990 Supp (1) SCC 727], wherein it was held that appellate interference with discretionary orders is warranted only if the Trial Court's exercise is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. It is urged that the Appellate Court ignored the Trial Court's cogent findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; misconstrued the entries in the agreement as interpolations; and failed to appreciate settled law favouring injunction against alienation in specific performance suits to avoid complications, as enunciated in Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, [(2010) 2 SCC 142] and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2939] . The impugned order, if sustained, would result in miscarriage of justice, hence the same may be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order, submitting that the Trial Court patently erred by granting unprayed relief on possession, rendering its order perverse and amenable to appellate interference under Wander Lt Vs. Antox. (supra) . The Appellate Court rightly noted the suit land's undivided status (as per revenue records showing 2/3 share of Jitendra and 1/3 of Rajesh), forgery suspicions (mismatch between original and certified copy of agreement), and tactical withdrawal of the first IA, indicating lack of bona fides. The undertaking against alienation adequately protects the petitioner's interests under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, without necessitating a full injunction.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record, and considered the rival contentions.

8. The scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or grave dereliction of duty, without acting as an appellate forum or re-appreciating evidence unless the impugned order is manifestly perverse or contrary to law (Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, [(2003) 6 SCC 675)].

9. Admittedly, the prayer in IA No. 1/2021 was confined to restraining alienation/transfer of the suit land. The Trial Court's order, while finding a prima facie case based on documents and Patwari report, extended the injunction to prohibit "interference" with the land, effectively protecting possession--a relief not sought in the application. This overreach constitutes a patent illegality, as courts cannot grant relief beyond pleadings Trojan & Co. v. RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar (AIR 1953 SC 235) . The Appellate Court, in para 14 of its order, correctly identified this error and set aside the Trial Court's order on this ground, among others.

10. Regarding appellate interference under Wander Ltd.vs. Antox (Supra), the Trial Court's discretion was exercised perversely by ignoring the undivided nature of the property (no demarcation/partition evidenced) and granting unprayed relief. The Appellate Court did not merely substitute its view but pointed out ignored settled principles, such as no presumption of possession in joint property without partition (Section 44, Transfer of Property Act) and evidentiary concerns over post-registration endorsements (Sections 91-92, Evidence Act, 1872). The suspicion of interpolation is prima facie supported by the certified copy's mismatch, warranting caution at interim stage.

11. The cited precedents by the petitioner, Skyline Education (supra) and Ramakant Choksi (supra), emphasize granting injunction against alienation where prima facie case exists to prevent multiplicity. However, here, the prima facie case is weakened by documentary discrepancies and joint ownership. The Appellate Court's direction for a written undertaking (now complied via affidavit) achieves the same object without endorsing the Trial Court's excesses, aligning with equitable discretion under Order 39 CPC. No grave illegality or jurisdictional error vitiates the impugned order, rendering it "just and proper." The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. To prevent any prejudice and ensure status quo, both parties are directed not to alienate, transfer, or create third-party interests in the suit land till final disposal of the suit. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the suit's hearing and dispose it as early as possible, subject to cooperation of parties.

No order as to costs.