(Oral)

1) The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, restraining the petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit land, as well as the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.

2) The brief facts of the Case are that the respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 54 of 2021 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, seeking permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Khata No. 53, Khasra No. 355/4, admeasuring 0.253 hectare, situated in Village Jhankaiya, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, claiming himself to be the recorded tenure holder and in possession thereof. Along with the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC alleging interference by the present petitioner in his peaceful possession. The petitioner contested the said application by filing objection, denying the respondent's exclusive ownership and possession and raising objections regarding demarcation of the land. Upon receipt of objection and hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), vide order dated 19.05.2022, allowed the injunction application in favour of the respondent. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2022, which too was dismissed by the learned appellate court on 19.10.2023. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have passed the impugned orders mechanically and without proper application of judicial mind. It is contended that the respondent is not the exclusive owner of the land in question and has failed to place any document of family partition on record, whereas the Khatauni itself reflects joint ownership. It is further submitted that the revenue map shows only one Khasra number, i.e., 355, and the same is not demarcated into sub-numbers such as 355/1, 355/2, 355/3 and 355/4. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is not possible to ascertain the exact location of Khasra No. 355/4, and in the absence of proper demarcation, no injunction could have been granted.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the respondent has suppressed material facts from the courts below and obtained injunction by misleading the court, which amounts to fraud. It is argued that settled law is that a party who approaches the court with unclean hands is not entitled to any equitable relief, interim or final. It is further urged that the appellate court has failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal and has merely affirmed the trial court's order without independent application of mind. On these grounds, it is prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside.

5) The learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on the counter affidavit, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is an attempt to convert the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court into a second appellate jurisdiction. It is submitted that the respondent is a recorded tenure holder of Khasra No. 355/4, recorded in Varg 1-Ka category, and is in settled possession of the suit land. The revenue records produced by the respondent clearly establish his possession, whereas the petitioner admittedly is not in possession of Khasra No. 355/4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is claiming possession over Khasra No. 355/1, which is recorded as Government land (5-1 category), and no document whatsoever has been filed by the petitioner to establish either title or possession over the said land. It is argued that the petitioner has been interfering in the respondent's land, compelling the respondent to seek protection from the civil court. It is also submitted that the courts below have rightly considered the three essential ingredients for grant of injunction, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, and have returned concurrent findings in favour of the respondent. No perversity or jurisdictional error is demonstrated.

6) Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that issues relating to demarcation and boundary are matters of evidence, which can only be decided during trial and cannot be examined in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The injunction granted is temporary in nature and subject to final adjudication of the civil suit.

7) Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and after perusal of materials on record, this Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. At the outset, it must be emphasised that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute its own view for that of the subordinate courts, particularly where discretion has been exercised judicially. In the present case, both the trial court as well as the appellate court have concurrently held that the respondent has established a prima facie case on the basis of revenue records showing his name recorded over Khasra No. 355/4 and that he is in possession thereof. The petitioner, on the other hand, has failed to produce any document to show his possession over the said land. The contention relating to lack of demarcation of the land raises disputed questions of fact. Such issues require evidence and cannot be adjudicated in supervisory jurisdiction. The learned courts below have rightly protected the possession of the recorded tenure holder till final adjudication. The allegation of suppression of material facts is not supported by any cogent material. Mere assertions of fraud, without substantiating, cannot be a ground to interfere with well- reasoned orders.

8) Therefore this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. The petitioner is essentially seeking re-appreciation of evidence and reassessment of factual findings, which is impermissible under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9) The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.