JUDGMENT : 1. Through the instant petition, petitioner seeks setting aside/quashment of the impugned order dated 17th May, 2016 passed by the City Judge, Jammu and the order dated 23rd December, 2016 passed by the Additional District, Judge, Jammu, whereby the Civil First Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts, as these emerge from the study of the file under consideration are that respondent, namely, Lal Din filed a Civil Suit (Annexure-A) against the petitioner in the Court of City Judge, Jammu, alleging therein that he had purchased a plot of land measuring 22½ Marlas under Khasra No. 2251 at Nowabad Bathindi, Jammu for a sale consideration of Rs. 4.70 Lacs. The said plot was purchased by him from Abdul Aziz Rather S/o Abdul Gaffar Rather R/o Village Bijbehara, District Anantnag, Kashmir and the respondent was given possession of the said plot by the vendor, who was also in possession of the said plot. It has been averred in the Suit that the Sale Deed could not be executed, as the land being State Land. It has also been averred that the respondent had also stated that after purchasing the said plot from Abdul Aziz Rather, he has constructed a boundary wall by brick masonry. In the Suit, the respondent has been stated that he is the employee of judiciary and is posted in Sunderbani and in his absence, some land grabbers with the support of police officials are bent upon to dispossess him from the said plot. On the aforesaid allegations, the Hon’ble Court issued an interim order (Annexure-B) dated 25th June, 2013, by virtue of which the petitioner herein was temporarily restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the suit plot. 3. It is further averred that the petitioner was summoned and thereafter, he filed a written statement, which is annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition, in which it was contended by the petitioner that he has purchased the land measuring 17½ Marlas being Plot No.16/50 falling under Khasra Nos. 3. It is further averred that the petitioner was summoned and thereafter, he filed a written statement, which is annexed as Annexure-C to the writ petition, in which it was contended by the petitioner that he has purchased the land measuring 17½ Marlas being Plot No.16/50 falling under Khasra Nos. 2252/2 and 2251/1202 from one-Harbans Singh by virtue of an agreement to sell duly executed on 16th March, 1993 and since then, he is enjoying the possession of the said plot and has constructed one room in the shape of shed in the said plot and the respondent herein has no right to interfere into the possession of the petitioner over the said plot. The respondent without any right or reason or legal justification with the help of some land grabbers is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the Suit land and taking undue advantage of his posting as a Judicial Clerk. The plot of the petitioner coincides with the plot on spot and there was no plot of 22½ Marlas. Colony has been laid prior to 1990 and provided roads and lanes. The respondent had further contended in his written statement that earlier one-Khurshid Ali had also raised claim over the said land and had filed a Suit against the petitioner, which was later on withdrawn by him, as he failed to dispossess the petitioner from the Suit land. 4. The fact, which has also been emerged from the study of the file is that during the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court for appointment of Commissioner and the said application was allowed by the Trial Court and Naib Tehsildar, Nowabad, Sunjwan was appointed as Commissioner, who was directed to go on spot and after intimation to both, the parties will report factual position on spot after making demarcation, if any, required with respect to the suit property. The said Commissioner visited on spot, but neither had he informed the petitioner nor any notice was issued to him, but during the pendency of the Suit, the respondent filed a certified copy of the report of Commissioner before the Trial Court. The said Commissioner visited on spot, but neither had he informed the petitioner nor any notice was issued to him, but during the pendency of the Suit, the respondent filed a certified copy of the report of Commissioner before the Trial Court. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties has decided the interim application vide order dated 17th May, 2016 and by virtue of the said order, the Trial Court has made initial order (Annexure-F) dated 25th June, 2013, absolute meaning thereby that the petitioner and the respondent in the Suit has been restrained from interfering with the suit plot till the disposal of the Suit. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Jammu on the ground that the Trial Court has virtually decreed the Suit in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent. The plaintiff had prayed for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and by virtue of the order, the Trial Court has made the interim order, by virtue of which the petitioner/appellant was restrained from interfering into the suit property. The Trial Court had acceded his powers by decreeing the Suit without trial despite the fact that the Trial Court had held that there is a triable issue in the Suit and as such, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to pass the orders and safeguard the interest of both the parties. The order passed by the Trial Court is against law. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide order (Annexure-G) dated 23rd December, 2016. In this factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. 5. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid impugned orders, inter alia, on the grounds that “the order impugned has been passed without the application of mind and has upheld the order of the Trial Court without mentioning the reasons for the same. It was incumbent upon the Appellate Court to appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The order impugned has given a license to the plaintiff/respondent herein to deal with the suit land, which would tantamount to decreeing the Suit of the plaintiff; that the impugned orders have been passed by abusing the process of the Court and are working harshly against the petitioner. The order impugned has given a license to the plaintiff/respondent herein to deal with the suit land, which would tantamount to decreeing the Suit of the plaintiff; that the impugned orders have been passed by abusing the process of the Court and are working harshly against the petitioner. The petitioner has been deprived from the property regarding which the respondent has no right or cause and the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have passed the order, which have caused inconvenience and is virtually miscarriage of justice. The Trial Court as well the Appellate Court has observed that there being a triable issue and after observing this fact that the Trial Court should have taken care of the interests of both the parties till the Suit was decided finally. 6. Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it has been stated that the Revision Petition is barred by time, as such is liable to be dismissed because the period for filing Revision Petition in terms of Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure is the period, which is meant for filing appeal, which is 90 days. It is stated that the orders under challenge in the Revision Petition are dated 17th May, 2016 of learned City Judge, Jammu, titled, “Lal Din Vs. Farooq Ahmed Tramboo” and 23rd December, 2016 of learned Additional District Judge, Jammu passed in exercise of Appellate jurisdiction in case titled, “Farooq Ahmed Tramboo Vs. Lal Din.” The petition further is not maintainable because the petitioner had been appearing before the Trial Court after passing of order dated 23rd December, 2016 by the Appellate Court. For perusal, the certified copies of the orders dated 02nd January, 2017, 24th March, 2017, 23rd January, 2018, 09th March, 2018 and 24th April, 2018 of the Trial Court are annexed as Annexure-RA. It is stated that the Suit is now fixed for framing of issues, as both the petitioner and the respondent herein have since submitted the documents. 7. For perusal, the certified copies of the orders dated 02nd January, 2017, 24th March, 2017, 23rd January, 2018, 09th March, 2018 and 24th April, 2018 of the Trial Court are annexed as Annexure-RA. It is stated that the Suit is now fixed for framing of issues, as both the petitioner and the respondent herein have since submitted the documents. 7. It has also been stated in the objections that the order of the Trial Court dated 17th May, 2016, impugned in the petition, came to be passed after the copy of the Commissioner’s Report was taken on record, whereas the Commissioner, Naib Tehsildar Babu, namely, Shabir Ahmed was appointed on the request of the petitioner/defendant vide order dated 13th August, 2014, who had confirmed on record that the subject suit land measuring 17½ Marlas is comprised in Khasra No. 2251 of Village Nawabad, Sunjwan/Bathindi, which is duly four walled with brick masonry having a gate and is in actual physical possession of Lal Din-plaintiff/respondent herein. Thus, the Commissioner’s report manifestly would show that the respondent/plaintiff is in actual physical possession of suit plot, for which water and electricity connections are sanctioned in his favour. 8. It is further pleaded in the objections that both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court had held that the suit plot measuring 17½ Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 2251, which the plaintiff/respondent purchased from Abdul Azia Rather is in his possession, having further observed that Abdul Azia purchased the said plot from Noor Ali S/o Gagu. This stand has also been taken in the objections that the plaintiff/respondent had got sanctioned the Electric and Water connection for the suit land based upon the ownership documents. Thus, the order of status-quo, as passed by this Court on 03rd May, 2018 needs to be vacated or modified, taking into consideration the documentary evidence having been taken on record by the Trial Court. It is stated that the petitioner/defendant did not append any document along with the written statement before the Court below. 9. It is also submitted that the petitioner/defendant neither appended documentary proof with written statement nor even objected to the Report of the Commissioner before the order of the Trial Court was passed. Undeniably, the suit plot as well as the plot, falling under Khasra Nos. 9. It is also submitted that the petitioner/defendant neither appended documentary proof with written statement nor even objected to the Report of the Commissioner before the order of the Trial Court was passed. Undeniably, the suit plot as well as the plot, falling under Khasra Nos. 2252/2 and 2251/1202, which the petitioner/defendant has claimed to have purchased from one-Harbans Singh is recorded as State land. The claim of ownership, if at all, is to be decided would be decided by the State under a policy of regularization of ownership, as more than 70 Kanals of land is falling under Khasra No. 2251/2252 and huge houses have existed thereupon. The issue of determination regarding the possession of suit land is the issue before the Trial Court, which as a matter of fact and record, stands decided in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses, namely, Noor Ali, Faryad Ali, Satnam Singh, Parveen Akhtar and Nazira Bibi have stated that the suit plot belongs to Lal Din, who was and is in possession thereof and have constructed a room therein, having further stated that petitioner and his goons had attempted to raze the structure of room by criminally trespassing in the said plot. The FIR No. 131/2013 came to be registered with Police Station, Bagh-e-Bahu under Sections 447, 427 and 379 RPC is against the plaintiff/respondent despite the fact that the Complaint for registration of FIR against the petitioner-Farooq Ahmed Tramboo was lodged by the plaintiff/respondent-Lal Din. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 2015 of 2011 (arising out of Civil Appeal Nos. 2015 of 2011 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 20821/2010) titled “Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and Another”. He also relies upon the decision of this Court in case titled, “Kunj Lal Vs. Union of India and others”, reported in 2005(Supp.) JKJ 608. 11. I have considered the rival contentions. 12. Petitioner/defendant is claiming his ownership and possession on land measuring 17½ marlas under survey no. 2252/2 & 2251/1202 situated at Nowabad Sunjwana by virtue of agreement to sell dated 16.03.1993 allegedly executed between him and one Harbans Singh (vendor); whereas respondent/plaintiff has claimed his right of ownership in possession on land 22½ marlas under survey no. 12. Petitioner/defendant is claiming his ownership and possession on land measuring 17½ marlas under survey no. 2252/2 & 2251/1202 situated at Nowabad Sunjwana by virtue of agreement to sell dated 16.03.1993 allegedly executed between him and one Harbans Singh (vendor); whereas respondent/plaintiff has claimed his right of ownership in possession on land 22½ marlas under survey no. 2251 situated at Nowabad Batindhi by virtue of agreement to sell dated 30.10.1997 allegedly executed between him and one Abdul Aziz Rather (vendor). It has further come in pleadings by plaintiff/respondent that at spot only 17-1/2 m of land is left. 13. Respondent filed a suit for injunction before City Judge, Jammu for injunction against petitioner/defendant; initially Court granted ad interim restrain order against the defendant thereby directing him not to interfere into the land 17½ marlas under survey no. 2251 situated at Nowabad Batindhi in possession of plaintiff in temporary injunction application on 25.6.2013; petitioner herein appeared and filed written statements; even revenue officer (Naib Tehsildar) Commissioner was appointed on the application of petitioner by Court; and Court of City Judge made the order absolute in ad interim injunction on 17.5.2016 . 14. Petitioner-defendant challenged the said order in appeal before Additional District Judge, who, too dismissed the appeal on 23.12.2016. 15. Both courts have categorically held that respondent is in possession of land 17½ marlas under survey no. 2251 situated at Nowabad Batindhi, so petitioner/defendant has no right to interfere. There is concurrent finding in this regard. Further, both courts have not taken into consideration the report of Commissioner; but perusal of this report copy of which is in file would reveal that land in question is four walled with gate and possession is with respondent/plaintiff. 16. So there is concurrent finding of two courts below, which is supported with report of Commissioner that respondent is in possession of suit property. So, I do not find any incorrectness in orders of Courts below in this regard. However, argument of counsel for petitioner that in case lis is not protected, the suit of respondent would stand decreed without framing of issues and leading of evidence and future trial would be merely formality without any result, has force. So respondent is directed not to create any third party interest in the suit property. He shall file undertaking in this regard before trial court. 17. So respondent is directed not to create any third party interest in the suit property. He shall file undertaking in this regard before trial court. 17. The instant petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.