Rashid Khan vs Ayub Khan

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 05.04.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Mungawali in Misc. Appeal No. 09/2013.

Petitioner''s application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. was decided by trial Court in Case No. 103A/2012 on 27.07.2013 and the defendants were restrained from making any kind of interference on the land in question. This order was put to test in Misc. Appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. by the defendants. Appeal was allowed, which is called in question in this petition.

Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial Court has rightly passed the order on the basis of revenue records and Appellate Court has erred in interfering with the same. In addition, he submits that Appellate Court should have directed to maintain status quo by the parties.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

The trial Court''s order dated 27.07.2013 shows that singular reason on which injunction was granted was that name of plaintiff is recorded in the revenue record and therefore, prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff. This order is disturbed by the impugned order on the ground that in the revenue record the name of the plaintiff was entered on the basis of mutation by the Panchayat. Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Panchayat which was foundation/basis of entry in revenue record. Appellate Court''s order is called in question before the Commissioner. The Commissioner also rejected the appeal. Presently matter is pending before the Board.

Aforesaid facts are not disputed by Shri N.K. Gupta. Once the basic order is set aside by which petitioner''s name was mutated/entered in the revenue records, the very foundation goes. This aspect is not considered by the Trial Court. There is no legal flaw in the finding of Appellate Court.

The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Even an erroneous order is not required to be corrected in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The basic purpose of exercising the said jurisdiction is to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . There is no ingredient on which interference can be made in this petition.

The Appellate Court has given plausible finding which is neither perverse nor arbitrary. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the matter.

Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.