Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 9: Reiterating that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to substitute the discretion exercised by subordinate courts merely because another view is possible, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld concurrent orders of the Trial Court and Appellate Court granting interim injunction in a property dispute from Kupwara.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a petition filed by 70-year-old Farooq Ahmad Mir challenging the orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Kupwara and Munsiff, Sogam in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents.
The High Court held that the courts below had committed no illegality in relying upon an unregistered agreement to sell for the limited purpose of determining the nature and character of possession at the prima facie stage.
The petitioner had argued that the agreement to sell was unregistered and unstamped and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence as it conferred no right, title or interest in immovable property. It was further contended that the property was joint and undivided and incapable of lawful alienation.
However, the High Court refused to accept the contention, observing that although an agreement to sell does not confer title, it may nonetheless be relied upon for collateral purposes, including assessment of possession.
“The enquiry is limited to the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury”, the Court observed while emphasizing the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunctions.
Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment, the High Court observed that an interlocutory injunction rests on tentative findings and is intended only as a temporary arrangement to preserve status quo till final adjudication so that the proceedings do not become infructuous or render the final relief illusory.
The Court further observed that the object of interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against irreparable injury which may not be adequately compensated by damages if the case is ultimately decided in his favour.
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Wander Ltd. Versus Antox India (P) Ltd, Justice Nargal observed that appellate courts cannot interfere with discretionary orders unless such discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely.
“This Court, while exercising supervisory/appellate jurisdiction, cannot reassess the material on record as if sitting in appeal over the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the court of first instance merely because another view may also be possible,” the judgment said. The Court made it clear that interference under Article 227 is warranted only where there is “patent arbitrariness, perversity, capriciousness or disregard of settled principles governing grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions”.
“Even a person without perfect title, if found in settled possession, is entitled to protection against unlawful interference except in accordance with law,” the Court observed and noted that both the Trial Court and Appellate Court were primarily influenced by the factum of peaceful use and possession of the suit property by the plaintiffs.
Justice Nargal observed that reliance upon the agreement to sell by the subordinate courts was confined only to assessing prima facie possession and was therefore legally permissible. The High Court further underscored the limited scope of Article 227 jurisdiction by referring to recent Supreme Court judgments.
Quoting Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reiterated that Article 227 is not meant for correcting mere errors and cannot be treated as a substitute for an ordinary appellate forum.
Holding that the petitioner failed to point out any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity in the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld both the orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Kupwara and Munsiff, Sogam.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
