JUDGMENT : VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J. 1. The order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Munsiff, Jammu, (for brevity ‘trial court’) whereby application of the plaintiff/petitioner herein seeking an order under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been rejected and order dated 02.05.2018 (for brevity ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (for brevity ‘Appellate Court’) in appeal against the said order upholding the order of the trial court and rejecting the appeal, have been assailed in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and seeking quashing of the said orders and allowing his application filed by him under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, for temporary injunction filed by him alongwith his suit seeking decree for declaration as well as injunction. 2. Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court, in which he has sought following reliefs: (a) Decree of declaration declaring the sale deed dated 16.05.2001 executed by defendants no. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant no. 5 for land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas; sale deed dated 31.01.2004 executed by defendants no. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant no. 5 for land measuring 9 marlas in Khasra No. 155 Khata No. 740 Khewat No. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu and sale deed dated 31.12.2005 executed by Anil favour of Defendant no. 6 for land measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas comprised in khasra no. 155 Khata no. 740 khewat no. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu as null and void in as far as these effect the rights of the plaintiff over the land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas falling under Khasra No. 155 Khata no. 740 Khewat No. 65 in possession of the plaintiff. (b) Consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 3. The plaintiff/petitioner has sought the aforesaid reliefs precisely on the following pleas/grounds: (a) That he is the owner in possession of land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas falling under Khasra No. 155 Khata no. 740 khewat no. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu. He had been in possession even prior to year 1971 and is in continuous possession. Besides this land, some other land is also in his cultivating possession. 740 khewat no. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu. He had been in possession even prior to year 1971 and is in continuous possession. Besides this land, some other land is also in his cultivating possession. He had constructed his house in some portion of land under khasra no. 155 in addition to the abovementioned land. (b) That defendants no. 1 to 3 have executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 5 through their attorney holder, defendant no. 4, in respect of land falling under khasra no. 155 khata no. 740 khewat no. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu. One sale deed was executed on 16.05.2001 for land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas and second sale deed was executed on 31.01.2004 for the land measuring 9 marlas. (c) That the defendants no. 1 to 3 had never been in physical possession of the land on spot and had no capacity under law to execute the abovementioned sale deeds. They have illegally and with ill intentions executed sale deeds in favour of defendant no. 5, who further executed sale deed in favour of defendant no. 6 dated 31.12.2005 in the same manner, whereas the fact is that defendant no. 5 was also not in physical possession of the aforesaid land. (d) That the defendant no. 6 is also not in possession of any land in the above said khasras numbers and is now trying to encroach upon the land of the plaintiff. (e) That the sale deeds executed by defendants no. 1 to 3 are illegal as the same have been executed by them without the knowledge and written consent of their sisters, namely, Amarjeet Kour and Simranjeet Kour, who are co-sharers in the said land. (f) The plaintiff’s possession over the suit land is authenticated by the report dated 09.10.2013 of the Patwari who has reported that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. 4. The respondents-defendants, while contesting the suit and refuting the grounds, have sought dismissal of the suit by taking following pleas: (a) Defendants no. 1 and 3/respondents herein have pleaded in their written statement that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land, as such, the suit is not maintainable under law; and the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court to equitable relief of declaration and injunction. 1 and 3/respondents herein have pleaded in their written statement that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land, as such, the suit is not maintainable under law; and the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the court to equitable relief of declaration and injunction. Defendant no. 2, who was brother of defendant no. 1 and 3, has died since long. Their mother had purchased 4 kanals of land from Nasibu S/o Sunder comprising in Khasra no. 155-min which was mutated in the name of their mother vide mutation no. 980, and after her death, it devolved upon defendants no. 1 to 3 and two sisters namely Amarjeet Kour and Simranjeet Kour and mutation attested in their names vide mutation no. 2578. (b) It is further pleaded that the mother of the defendants No. 1 and 2 remained in possession of the land. They had sold land measuring 1 Kanal and 15 Marlas out of their land measuring 4 Kanals to one Anil Kumar and also handed over its possession. (c) In the written statement it is further pleaded that no mutation under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act can be attested in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner as alleged by him. 5. The plaintiff-petitioner also sought temporary injunction by filing application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The said application, after having been resisted, was rejected by the Trial Court and order of status quo granted at the time of filing of suit was vacated. The Trial Court while dismissing the application observed as under: “Ground of execution of impugned sale deed without handing over possession is something which is sound legal but for that till now at this stage, the applicant has failed to place on record any latest document establishing his prima facie possession on suit land whereas the non-applicant no. 7 right being owner in possession over land mentioned in impugned registered sale deed in presumed to be correct unless rebutted and it is settled law that the injunction cannot be granted against true owner. As such, applicant fails to establish prima facie case in his favour on the basis of above-mentioned reasons.” 6. The order of the Trial court was challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner in an Appeal. As such, applicant fails to establish prima facie case in his favour on the basis of above-mentioned reasons.” 6. The order of the Trial court was challenged by the plaintiff-petitioner in an Appeal. The Appellate court, after having considered the record, pleadings of the parties as well as arguments/submissions made by counsel for the parties, rejected the appeal and upheld the order passed by the trial court. The appellate court while rejecting the appeal has observed that: “So according to the revenue record produced by the plaintiff and defendants in support of their case, it appears that on the date of filing of the suit by the plaintiff, defendant no. 6 Suraj Prakash was in possession of the suit land measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas as owner. There is no record on the file to prima-facie show the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as claimed by him in his suit. The plaintiff has not stated all the material facts in his plaint as he has suppressed that his sons are in possession of land measuring one kanal and thus he has not approached the Court with clean hands. Thus from the perusal of the trial court record, it appears that the plaintiff has prima-facie no case in his favour which required to be decided by the trial court and the dispute raised by him in his suit with respect to the suit land is not genuine and bona-fide.” 7. Both these orders are under challenge in this writ petition and are sought to be quashed on the grounds taken up therein while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Brief grounds taken up in the instant petition are that: (a) The respondents are not in possession of the suit land since the same is in possession of the petitioner since ages. (b) In view of the defects in the sale deed dated 31.12.2005 executed on the basis of a site plan of land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas, could not have been registered and relied upon by the learned trial court as well the appellate court because of manifest error. (b) In view of the defects in the sale deed dated 31.12.2005 executed on the basis of a site plan of land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas, could not have been registered and relied upon by the learned trial court as well the appellate court because of manifest error. (c) The trial court as well as the Appellate court have erred in holding that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit land for which there is no evidence, by relying upon the contradictory illegal documents of respondent No. 5 which is under challenge in the suit itself. (d) The learned trial court and the appellate court has not acted as per law and has totally ignored the facts that the sales deeds on the basis of which respondents are claiming to be in possession of the suit land is already under challenge in the suit itself. (e) The learned trial court and the Appellate court have while passing the impugned order, observed that respondent no. 5 is in possession of the suit land on the basis of Girdawari of 2010, 2012 and 2015 done on the basis of sale deed which is contrary to the facts that sale deed itself is incorrect and under challenge before the trial court. (f) The finding of the trial court that respondent No. 5 has purchased the suit land and is in possession of the suit land on the basis of revenue record is contrary to the fact that he is not in possession of the suit land. (g) The finding of the appellate court that petitioner has suppressed the material facts of transferring the land measuring 1 kanal under khasra No. 155 min by relinquishment deed to his brother and from him to his two sons by virtue of gift deed is contrary to the suit itself. (h) The trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that respondents have purchased alleged land from a shareholder who was not having 3 kanals of land in his share nor the same could have been purchased by respondent No. 5 and that the land which is under challenge in the suit could not have been transferred by way of impugned sale deeds, since the respondents 1 to 3 had already filed an appeal against the petitioner in the Revenue Court in the year 1991, which came to be dismissed. 9. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Perusal of the record reveals that plaintiff/petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants/respondents herein in the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu, which was transferred to the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu, for disposal under law. The petitioner claimed that he is the owner and in possession of land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 155, Khata no. 740, Khewat No. 65 situated at Patta Paloura, Jammu since 1971. He also claimed that some other land is also in his cultivating possession and he has also constructed his house over some portion of the said land. He further pleaded that three persons, namely, Joginder Singh, Mahinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh through their attorney holder, namely, Hans Raj, executed two sale deeds in favour of defendant-Anil Kumar with respect of the aforesaid land. According to him the said three persons were not in physical possession of the land and were not competent to execute sale deeds. 11. He in support of his claim regarding possession over the suit land relied upon the report of the Patwari dated 09.10.2013, which according to him confirms his possession. 12. Petitioner, thus, on the above pleas sought a decree for declaration to declare the sale deeds executed by the defendants as null and void, inoperative, illegal and not binding upon him, with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiff/petitioner. Defendants/ respondents herein contested the suit and filed separate written statements. 13. Defendants 1 and 3/respondents herein in their written statement pleaded that plaintiff/petitioner is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land, as such, the suit is not maintainable. 14. Defendant No. 5/respondent also denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff/petitioner herein over the suit land. According to him he had purchased land measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas from the defendants 1 and 3 and their deceased brother through two duly executed and registered sale deeds and the possession of the land was also handed over to him According to defendant No. 5 he later sold the said land through sale deed executed on 31.12.2005 to defendant No. 6 who is in possession of the land in question. The stand taken by the defendant No. 5 was that plaintiff/petitioner is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit land. He further pleaded that plaintiff has filed an appeal against the mutation No. 1319 attested in favour of defendant No. 6-respondent herein and obtained status-quo order from the Collector, Jammu, which fact has been concealed by him; thus, he is guilty of suppression of facts. He further pleaded that he has also lodged an FIR No. 53/2015 for commission of offences under Section 447/427 RPC at Police Station, Domana against the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The defendant No. 6/respondent herein had denied the claim of the petitioner that he is in possession of the suit land since 1971. 15. The defendant No. 6, Suraj Parkash in his written statement, has taken some preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the suit, viz. that plaintiff/ petitioner is neither owner nor in possession of suit land. He has further pleaded that plaintiff/petitioner has filed an appeal against the mutation No. 1319 attested in his favour and obtained status quo order from the Collector, Jammu, and the said fact has been concealed by him. He pleaded that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the land measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas situated at Patta Paloura. He further pleaded that he has purchased land measuring 1 kanal 15 marlas from defendant No. 5 through duly executed and registered sale deed on the basis of Fard and Tatima issued by the Revenue Department. He also denied the claim of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit land since 1971. 16. The trial court while dealing with the application for grant of temporary injunction came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish that there was a prima facie case in his favour; he has failed to show as to how the respondents were not competent to execute sale deeds in question; or that they had executed the said sale deeds in respect of land beyond their share. The Trial court finding that plaintiff has failed to establish his case for grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 30.10.2017, rejected the application and vacated the interim order of status quo. 17. The order dated 30.10.2017 was challenged in appeal. The Trial court finding that plaintiff has failed to establish his case for grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 30.10.2017, rejected the application and vacated the interim order of status quo. 17. The order dated 30.10.2017 was challenged in appeal. The Appellate court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record opined that there is no record on the file to prima facie show the possession of the plaintiff - petitioner herein, over the suit land as claimed by him. The Appellate Court observed that the plaintiff has not stated all the material facts in his suit as he has suppressed that his sons are in possession of the land measuring one kanal and, thus, he has not approached the Court with clean hands. It has also been observed by the appellate court that it is not clear from the revenue record under what circumstances mutation under Section 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act was attested in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner herein with regard to the land measuring 1 kanal 19 marlas and the land falling under Khasra No. 155 measuring 1 kanal was transferred by the plaintiff to his brother by relinquishment and after that Parshotam Chand further gifted the said land in favour of two sons of the plaintiff. The Appellate Court while holding that the appeal has no merit, dismissed the same. 18. Record would make it clear that the Trial Court, while considering and rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction, had taken into account all related material facts and after having the material on record had come to the conclusion that plaintiff had failed to establish a case for passing injunction against the defendants. The order so passed is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. 19. In appeal, the Appellate court has also considered the material and passed a well-reasoned order while rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff/ petitioner on the basis of record produced before the trial court, where the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the subject matter of the suit and it has also been prima facie established before the trial court on the basis of the documents produced that there was no evidence to presume or to prima facie show that plaintiff was in possession. The trial court as well the Appellate court have properly exercised their jurisdiction and no fault can be found with the findings returned by both the courts below while rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction as also the appeal. 20. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders in this writ petition by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. It is pertinent to mention here that writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not an ordinary writ and the power, as such, has not to be and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. Article 227 determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction (except a court formed under a law related to armed forces). The High Court can, thus, under Article 227: (a) Call for returns from such courts. (b) Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts. (c) Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts be kept by the officers of any such courts. (d) Settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts. (e) Scope, Powers and Difference between Article 226 and Article 227. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (6) SCC 675 , relied on several judgments; one of which was Umaji Keshao Meshram and Others vs. Smt. Radhikabai and Another, (1986) Supp. SCC 401, which laid down the scope, power and differences between Article 226 and Article 227. 23. The first and foremost difference between the Article 226 and 227 is that the proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court whereas the proceedings under Article 227 are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article to tribunals as well. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article to tribunals as well. Though the power is similar to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. 24. The Supreme Court further observed that the power under Article 227 shall be exercised only in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when: (i) The court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have. (ii) The court or tribunal has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice. (iii) The jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamount to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction. 25. The Supreme Court in the case of Surya Devi Rai (supra) has further observed that there is lack of knowledge of the distinction between the understanding of Article 226 and 227 and hence it is a common custom with the lawyers labeling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial pronouncements. 26. After discussion of the chain of decisions, the Supreme Court in Surya Devi Rai (supra) has laid down the following differences: (i) Firstly, the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction (Article 226) by the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227) is not an original jurisdiction and in this regard, it is akin to appellate revisional or corrective jurisdiction. (ii) Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more (Article 226). (ii) Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more (Article 226). In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227) the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute the impugned decision with a decision of its own, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. (iii) The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved but the power conferred under Article 227 viz. the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being exercised suo moto as well. 27. The Supreme Court concluded that under Article 226 of the Constitution, writ is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted: (i) without jurisdiction, by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none. (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction-by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction. (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified and thereby occasioning failure of justice. 28. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law, and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 29. 29. I have carefully examined the orders under challenge and in view of the well-settled legal position, discussed above, I do not find any illegality committed either by the Trial court or the Appellate court in passing the impugned orders that too the one which calls for exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 227. The orders are well reasoned and need no interference. The party approaching the court with a suit, appeal or any other proceeding does not automatically get clothed with a right to necessarily get a relief in its favour, but there are certain parameters envisaged by law that are to be satisfied before any such direction is passed. It cannot be granted on mere asking of the party. The satisfaction of the court vis-a-vis prima facie case having been made out is of utmost importance and cannot just be brushed aside. 30. In view of the above, I do not see any case having been made out by the petitioner, therefore, this petition shall stand dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 31. Copy be sent down along with the record, if any summoned/received.