JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and scanned the record. 2. Through this petition an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vesting in terms of article 227 of the Constitution of India is being solicited by the petitioner for examining the legal fitness of exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu in adjudicating a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 against an order of rejection of temporary injunction application maintained under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 in a civil suit of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib before the court of learned Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu. The two courts are tangent in terms of their respective adjudication with respect to an interlocutory injunctory matter. 3. Examination of facts in/of a case, be it civil or criminal, before a court of law, be it at trial or first appellate stage, is meant and expected to be both at macro as well as micro level on the part of a given court. For this, a perpetual principle to be referred to and reminded is “fact first and reasoning later”. The words of John H. Langbein, Professor of Law & History “find the facts and law is easy,” serves a dictum which admits full application in any given case before a court of law. In the event of a lapse/omission on the part of a given court of law in discerning the full facts of a given case, the lengthening of litigation is rendered simply unavoidable as the party feeling prejudiced by the lapse and/or omission on the part of the court, in terms of its obligation to see and discern the facts clearly, is left with no other option but to climb up the litigation ladder to exhaust any next available remedy, direct or remote, to get rid of the said prejudice lest it causes serious injury to the rights of a party involved in a given lis. On the other hand, if a court of law, in a given case, comes up with exposure and examination of full facts and thereupon applies the legal reasoning and the law as applicable, then the scope for a aggrieved litigant/party aggrieved to challenge such an adjudication is sure to be more on a disincentive side rather than on an incentive side. Thus, discernment is an essentiality in application of judicial mind. 4. The present case is one where the lower appellate court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, restricted as well as constricted its gaze to see thoroughly at and through the facts of the case in dealing with the appeal of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh against an impugned interlocutory order passed by the trial court of learned Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu and that brings the engagement of this Court at the call of the petitioner which cannot be put off by mere fact that the impugned order being that of a superior court, as against the original order of the trial court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), is worthy of a readymade reliance from this Court acting on its supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is an admitted position of fact in the present case that the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob was an owner in possession of a big chunk of land comprised in khasra No. 123 in Mauza Estate Channi Kamala, Jammu, out of which he had come to carve out residential plots for the purpose of sale. 6. By virtue of an agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992 made by and between the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo (now deceased), a plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 min. measuring 30'×50' (5 marlas 140 sq. ft.) was agreed to be sold in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. As per this agreement to sell, the consideration agreed upon between the two had come to be paid and the vacant possession of the plot of land identified as 22-A came to be handed over to the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. 7. The execution of the agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992 was attended with a simultaneous execution of a registered general power of attorney by the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. 8. 7. The execution of the agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992 was attended with a simultaneous execution of a registered general power of attorney by the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. 8. Thus, on the basis of said two documents, the claim of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo that he got into settled possession of plot of land identified as 22-A came to set in with only transfer of title awaiting to take place pursuant to the said agreement to sell. 9. The respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob, acting through an attorney holder Nanak Chand, came to execute a sale-deed dated 22.07.2003 in favour of the respondent no. 3-Shakuntala Devi in terms whereof a plot of land comprising in khasra No. 123 min. measuring 5.5 marlas Mauza Channi Kamala came to be sold thereby making the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi to be the owner of said 5.5 marlas of plot of land in khasra No. 123 min. On the basis of said sale-deed dated 22.07.2003, the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi came to seek attestation of mutation which came to take place in terms of mutation No. 1517, dated 11.10.2003. 10. This sale-deed dated 22.07.2003 made between the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi with respect to 5.5 marlas of plot of land in khasra No. 123 min. did not bear reference by any plot number as was the case of the agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992 and the registered general power of attorney dated 24.03.1992 made in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo wherein the said plot of land agreed to be sold by the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob came to be identified as plot No. 22-A. 11. On 11.12.2006 a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo against the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi thereby seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plot No. 22-A measuring 30×50 (5 marlas 140 sq. ft.) This suit was filed before the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu. 12. In this suit, the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo had clearly set out his claim with respect to plot No. 22-A by reference to the agreement to sell and the general power of attorney and he being in its actual physical possession since 1992. 13. ft.) This suit was filed before the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu. 12. In this suit, the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo had clearly set out his claim with respect to plot No. 22-A by reference to the agreement to sell and the general power of attorney and he being in its actual physical possession since 1992. 13. Thus, both the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi came to be pitted with the disclosure of factual claim by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo that his possession qua plot No. 22-A was on the basis of purported legal documents executed in his favour and his plot possession was relating back to 1992 with which said two respondents had no right to interfere. 14. Upon the institution of the aforesaid suit by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo against the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi, the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob came to act by execution of a revocation deed dated 13.02.2007 thereby revoking the general power of attorney obtaining in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob had then submitted his written statement on 15.02.2007 in the suit so filed by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo before the court of Munsiff, Jammu. 15. In his written statement, the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob did not plead that the plot No. 22-A forming the subject matter of the civil suit of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo was actually a plot No. 20-A or that there was no such plot No. 22-A. The respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob, instead, claimed that he was still continuing to be in possession of plot No. 22-A. In this case, the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi seems not to have appeared to come forward with her own stand vis-a-vis the stand of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo, as set up in the suit or of the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob as set up in his written statement. 16. While the aforesaid suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo was pending adjudication, another civil suit No. 169/Civil came to be filed on 02.01.2008 by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo this time only against the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob as set up in his written statement. 16. While the aforesaid suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo was pending adjudication, another civil suit No. 169/Civil came to be filed on 02.01.2008 by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo this time only against the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob before the court of learned Sub Judge, Jammu thereby seeking a decree of specific performance of contract in furtherance of agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992 for sale of plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 min. 17. On the other hand, the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi, by virtue of a sale-deed dated 08.10.2009, came to dispose of her said purchased plot of 5.5 marlas in khasra No. 123 in favour of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib. This sale-deed also does not bear any reference to plot-wise number in the context as was the case with respect to agreement to sell and general power of attorney in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo identifying the plot agreed to be sold in his favour to be plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 min. The respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to get mutation No. 179/JEEM, dated 05.04.2010 attested in his favour. 18. On the other hand, a development came to take place when the suit filed by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo against the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob before the court of learned Sub Judge, Jammu for decree of specific performance of contract came to be dismissed on account of being time barred vide a judgment and decree 20.12.2010 against which the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo came to prefer a civil first appeal on 30.12.2010 before the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu. 19. Later, in the course of time, the civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo against the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction pending before the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu came to be disposed of by virtue of an order and decree dated 27.04.2016 in view of a purported compromise arrived at between the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo and the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob confirming the possession of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo qua plot No. 22-A measuring 30×50 (5 marlas 140 sq. Yaqoob confirming the possession of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo qua plot No. 22-A measuring 30×50 (5 marlas 140 sq. ft.) in Channi Kamala, Jammu. For this compromise to be taken on record, the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo had got the name of the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi deleted from the array of the defendants as she being the defendant No. 2. 20. The civil first appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo came to be disposed of by the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu in the light of the compromise arrived at between the said two respondents, as being appellant and the respondent in the said appeal, in terms of a judgment and decree dated 10.05.2016 whereby the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob came to be directed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo qua plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 measuring 30×50 (5 marlas 140 sq. ft.) pursuant to the agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992 in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. 21. It was after the aforesaid development that the petitioner emerged on the scene when by virtue of a sale-deed dated 08.07.2017 he came to purchase the very said plot No. 22-A from the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob acting through the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo meaning thereby that instead of getting sale deed executed in his favour as per the decree for specific performance of agreement to sell, the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo got it executed in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob acting through him i.e. the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo as being his attorney holder. 22. This sale-deed in favour of the petitioner came to identify the subject matter plot by its four side description in the following manner:- “East - Godown of Puneet Chopra West - Road 15 feet wide North - Road 15 feet wide South - Open plot” 23. The sale consideration for the said sale-deed was Rs. 17,82,000/-. On the basis of this sale-deed, the petitioner claims to have come into possession of the sold plot of land on the basis of which the petitioner came to get mutation No. 812/JEEM, dated 21.07.2013 attested in his favour. 24. The sale consideration for the said sale-deed was Rs. 17,82,000/-. On the basis of this sale-deed, the petitioner claims to have come into possession of the sold plot of land on the basis of which the petitioner came to get mutation No. 812/JEEM, dated 21.07.2013 attested in his favour. 24. The appearance of the petitioner qua title deed with respect to the plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 min., Channi Kamala Jammu made the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib to allege that on 21.08.2017 the petitioner along with the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo had come on the plot site of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib amounting to interference upon which alleged cause of action the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to file a civil suit No. 655/Civil on 24.08.2017 against the petitioner as well as the said respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. This suit was filed before the court of learned Munsiff, Jammu in which an interim direction of restraint came to be issued against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. 25. For the purpose of pursing this civil suit, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib had executed a power of attorney dated 30.08.2017 in favour of the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi. In this attorney, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib identified his attorney holder respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi to be his aunt. Thus, just with six days of filing of his civil suit on 24.08.2017, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib was bringing in the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi as his power of attorney for the very same plot which he has come to purchase from the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi by virtue of a sale-deed dated 17.11.2009. This is a development which invites many inferences one of which being as to whether the sale transaction was a bonafide one or a ruse. 26. In his civil suit, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib did not identify the suit plot by reference to plot number but by reference to khasra number, dimension and description i.e. on the eastern side bounded by a under-construction house, on the western side by a passage, on northern side by a passage and on the southern side open land. In this civil suit, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib besides seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction also sought a decree of mandatory injunction. In this civil suit, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib besides seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction also sought a decree of mandatory injunction. The four side description of the said plot which the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to state in his plaint in the aforesaid suit was not obtaining in the sale-deed dated 08.10.2009. 27. The petitioner came to appear in the said suit of the respondent No. 1- Ashok Singh Chib by filing his written statement and the objections to the temporary injunction application. 28. The trial court of Munsiff, Jammu by virtue of an order dated 15.03.2018 came to dismiss the temporary injunction application of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib against the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. The court of learned Munsiff, Jammu examined the prima facie nature of the case of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib and came to observe that the suit plot which the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib had come to purchase by virtue of a sale-deed dated 08.10.2009 from the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob through his attorney holder-Nanak Chand was referable to plot No. 20-A, although by the said plot number the plot purchased by the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib in his sale-deed was not so mentioned but it is only in the deed of attorney in favour of said Nanak Chand the competent to sell plot No. 20-A was available to relate the sale of the plot in favour of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib in terms of a sale-deed dated 08.10.2009 to be of plot No. 20-A. 29. On this basis, the trial court of Munsiff, Jammu came to hold that the petitioner was in possession of his own plot No. 22-A whereupon a part of construction already made on spot by the petitioner was obtaining for undoing which the respondent No. 1- Ashok Singh Chib was seeking a decree of mandatory injunction. The construction was made by the petitioner at the site of plot No. 22-A was observed to be having boundary walls raised upto 3 to 4 feet height, but the trial court of Munsiff, Jammu took due notice of the fact that the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib has not explained as to why he has remained mum to the course of construction being raised at the site by the petitioner. Thus, by holding that the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib had no prima facie case, his application for temporary injunction came to be dismissed. 30. The respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to prefer a civil miscellaneous appeal against said order dated 15.03.2018 of the learned Munsiff, Jammu before the appellate court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu on 17.04.2018. 31. While the aforesaid civil miscellaneous appeal was so pending adjudication, the civil suit of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib for the prosecution of which he had authorized the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi in terms of power of attorney dated 30.08.2017 came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on account of the fact that for the last four dates of hearing there was no representation on his behalf in the suit and, therefore, the same was dismissed in default. 32. The dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution came to be followed by dismissal of the said civil miscellaneous appeal before the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu in terms of an order dated 13.09.2018. The dismissal of said appeal had also taken place for non-prosecution on behalf of the respondent No. 1- Ashok Singh Chib. 33. In the face of the observation made by the trial court of Munsiff, Jammu in the said civil suit of the respondent No. 1- Ashok Singh Chib that the construction of the boundary wall at the site of plot No. 22-A is made by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib still risked the dismissal of his civil suit as well as of his miscellaneous appeal is a fact which makes a statement that the respondents No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib let the petitioner be in control of state of affairs qua plot No. 22-A. 34. The petitioner at his end came to apply for building permission from the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) which came to be accorded in his favour in terms of building permission No. 877/JMC/BS/2020, dated 05.01.2021. The building permission was for the purposes of construction of residential house at the site of plot No. 22-A. 35. The petitioner at his end came to apply for building permission from the Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) which came to be accorded in his favour in terms of building permission No. 877/JMC/BS/2020, dated 05.01.2021. The building permission was for the purposes of construction of residential house at the site of plot No. 22-A. 35. Alleging that the petitioner and the respondent No. 2- Pushkar Nath Bindroo have again started interfering in his plot, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came forward with the second suit of permanent prohibitory injunction with a mandatory injunction not only against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo but also against the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi and the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob. This suit came to be filed on 31.08.2021 before the court of Sub- Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu. 36. In this 2nd suit also, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib did not identify his plot by any plot number but provided the four side description of the plot as was stated in his first civil suit i.e. on the east side an under construction house, on the west side and north side passage and on the south side open land in the year 2021. The respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib was meaning to say that on the eastern side of his plot an under construction house which was under construction in the year 2017 was still in a state of under construction in the year 2021 as well. 37. In this 2nd civil suit, the court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu by virtue of an ex-parte interim order dated 07.09.2021 came to direct status-quo qua the suit plot. In the plaint, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to refer to the filing of the first civil suit against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo, the vacation of temporary injunction application therein and its dismissal for non-prosecution and the circumstances in which the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution relatable to the alleged illness of the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi. 38. 38. In relation to the cause of action for him to come forward with the second civil suit, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib pleaded that he had come to know about dismissal of the suit only when the petitioner came to undertake construction at the plot site allegedly owned and possessed by the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib and that during the intervening period of three years there was no act of interference on the part of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo against the alleged suit plot of the respondent No. 1-Pushkar Nath Bindroo. 39. The petitioner and the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo came to appear in the said 2nd civil suit and submitted their joint written statement as well as objections to the temporary injunction application, whereas the respondent No. 3- Shakuntala Devi and the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob also submitted their respective written statements. 40. The respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi, who was endorsing the case of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came forward with the stand that she had constructed a boundary well around the suit plot which she had first come to purchase by virtue of a sale-deed dated 27.07.2003 from the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob through Nanak Chand before selling it to the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib by virtue of a sale-deed dated 08.10.2009. 41. As against this averment of having constructed a boundary well, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib neither in his first suit nor in his second suit made any such averment that the plot purchased by him from the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi in terms of sale-deed dated 08.10.2009 was and is having any such boundary wall around it. On the other hand, in his second suit the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to plead that the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo started raising construction of a room upon the suit land for which some bricks, sand boulders and other building material also reached and dumped from their end. 42. The petitioner in his written statement came to reiterate his case that it is with respect to the purchase plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 that he undertook the construction activity as per building sanction for which his plot is covered by a boundary well and also having a single one room constructed for Chowkidar. 42. The petitioner in his written statement came to reiterate his case that it is with respect to the purchase plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 that he undertook the construction activity as per building sanction for which his plot is covered by a boundary well and also having a single one room constructed for Chowkidar. The petitioner further referred that when his construction activity at the site had reached up to lintel level with even shuttering work done for the purpose, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came forward with second suit getting the interim direction of status-quo thereby freezing further construction activity at the site to the prejudice of the petitioner. 43. The respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob in his written statement confirmed the fact that the petitioner was owner in possession of plot No. 22-A and was undertaking construction at the very said site whereas the respondent No. 1's plot was plot No. 20-A sold by him through the attorney holder-Nanak Chand to the respondent No. 3-Mohd. Yaqoob from whom the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to purchase the same. The respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob also confirmed the fact that the petitioner had raised construction at the site upto lintel level. 44. The respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came forward with a replica dated 01.09.2021 to the written statement filed by the petitioner and the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob in particular. In the factual context, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib in his replica did not utter a single line averment as to at what stage the construction undertaken by the petitioner at the site had reached instead the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib simply stated that the construction undertaken at the suit plot by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo was by forcible illegal encroachment done on 30.08.2021. In his replica, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib did not dispute the fact that the plot No. 22-A as described in the sale-deed of the petitioner in terms of four side description was not corresponding with the suit plot of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib and its given description. 45. In his replica, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib did not dispute the fact that the plot No. 22-A as described in the sale-deed of the petitioner in terms of four side description was not corresponding with the suit plot of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib and its given description. 45. The trial court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu came to adjudicate temporary injunction application, whereby the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib was seeking temporary injunction against the petitioner, his agents, servants, representatives from interfering in any manner in the ownership and possession with respect to suit plot and dismissed the said application by a detailed order dated 16.10.2021 by holding that the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib had no prima facie case made out for grant of temporary injunction. 46. In fact, the trial Court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu held the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib disentitled to temporary injunction relief on the ground that the respondent No. 1- Ashok Singh Chib by his own pleadings had pleaded the ouster of his possession from the suit plot and still there was no relief being claimed in the suit for restoration of the possession and instead a mandatory injunction has been sought for directing removal of the belongings of the petitioner from the suit land, which even if granted will not result in putting the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib in possession of the suit land. 47. The trial court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu came to take due notice of the fact that the construction raised by the petitioner at the site of alleged suit land had come up to a certain stage by the time of filing of the first civil suit by the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib and by the time of filing of the second civil suit in 2021 the petitioner is supposed to have raised a substantial construction at the very said plot site which cannot be injuncted at the asking of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib. 48. While dismissing the temporary injunction application of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib, the trial court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu in order to attend to the equity of the case came to direct the petitioner not to create a third party interest qua the suit plot. 49. 48. While dismissing the temporary injunction application of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib, the trial court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu in order to attend to the equity of the case came to direct the petitioner not to create a third party interest qua the suit plot. 49. Against this rejection of his temporary injunction application in terms of an order dated 16.10.2021 by the court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu, the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib came to prefer a civil miscellaneous appeal before the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu on 11.11.2021 i.e., almost after expiry of touching one month from the date of rejection of his temporary injunction application by the court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu in terms of an order dated 16.10.2021, meaning thereby the petitioner in the course of said intervening period carried forward his construction further at the site and still the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib was acting at his ease least bothering that time and situation were running against him in the matter of preferring an appeal against rejection of his temporary injunction application. 50. The court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu came to examine the order dated 16.10.2021 of the trial court of learned Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu, by posing a question as to whether the order is illegal and perverse and suffers from infirmity. In doing so, the lower appellate court of the Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu started its reading of facts of the case from the point of time of the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi purchasing the plot of land of 5½ marlas comprised in khasra No. 123 min. from the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob, through attorney holder Nanak Chand and from that perspective examined the entire case thereby editing out the factual aspect of the case relating back to 1992 when the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob by virtue of an agreement to sell and registered general power of attorney bearing a clear identification of plot No. 22-A in khasra No. 123 min. had come to make a deal with the respondent No. 20-Pushkar Nath Bindroo thereby letting him in vacant position of the plot No. 22-A. 51. The said transaction of the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob with the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo reckoning from 1992 attained its legitimacy when the respondent No. 4-Mohd. had come to make a deal with the respondent No. 20-Pushkar Nath Bindroo thereby letting him in vacant position of the plot No. 22-A. 51. The said transaction of the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob with the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo reckoning from 1992 attained its legitimacy when the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob came to compromise the civil suit filed by the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo result in passing a decree by the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu whereupon the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob was commanded to execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo and for that purpose instead of the respondent No. 2-Pushkar Nath Bindroo getting the sale-deed executed in his favour got done in favour of the petitioner while himself acting as attorney of the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob. 52. This is a very settled position of facts which was in existence much before the respondent No. 3-Shakuntala Devi came into scene in the form of a sale-deed dated 22.07.2003 of a plot of land measuring 5½ marlas comprised in khasra No. 123 min. without bearing any plot number identification from the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob through his attorney Nanak Chand, which plot came to be then sold by her to the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib in the same status as purchased by her. 53. The appellate court of the Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu posed very erroneous queries in examining the facts of the case, inasmuch as, observing as to from where the plot No. 22-A is said to have been purchased by the petitioner as the same is not mentioned in the sale-deed or in the aks tatima. In observing so, the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu omitted to observe and mention that the petitioner herein in his written statement was also defining the description of his said plot by its four sides' status to which the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib at no point of time took any exception with reference to the numbering of plot No. 22-A, though the sale-deed made in favour of the petitioner per-se did not carry its reference but the fact that in the agreement to sell and general power of attorney executed in the year 1992 inter-se the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 2-Puskhar Nath Bindroo the plot was none else than the same very plot with respect to which the respondent No. 4-Mohd. Yaqoob and the respondent No. 2- Pushkar Nath Bindroo had come to have a decree in between them. 54. The court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu by a pedantic reference to the fact that the purchase of the referred plot by the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib is 2009, whereas the plot purchase of the petitioner is that of 2017, as such, the prior purchaser is to be reckoned to be in possession of the purchased plot. The Court of the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu let itself to persuasion that the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib was having the case at his disposal for earning an interim injunctory direction. 55. It is thus, very evident that the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu scanned the facts and circumstances bearing blinders which thus restricted it from taking gaze of full canvass of facts and circumstances of this case, as this Court has referred and reproduced hereinbefore. 56. The court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu failed to see glaring gaps in the factual frame of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib's case in the civil suit as well as in the appeal against the order dated 16.10.2021 of the Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu and still reckoned the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib to be having a prima facie case at his disposal to earn injunctory direction which otherwise was not granted by the trial court. 57. The court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu did not spare its attention to the scenario in the failure on the part of respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib's first suit filed in the year 2017 in which also he had come to suffer denial of interim injunctory direction and also dismissal of an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) though for non-prosecution and also dismissal of suit for non-prosecution. 58. 58. To put it in simple words, the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu in purported exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1(r) in hearing an appeal against adjudication made with respect to temporary injunction application overstepped its jurisdiction by superimposing its discretion by its own fractured read of facts as against the better reading of facts and circumstances by the trial court below. In accepting the appeal of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib by directing status-quo to be maintained with respect to nature, user and possession of the suit land, the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu did not even bother to read as to what was being claimed through temporary injunction application of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib as the temporary injunction was never sought with respect to nature, user and possession of the suit land but only from interfering in any manner in the ownership and possession of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib with respect to suit land and in fact came to grant more than what was even asked for by the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib. 59. From the reading of the impugned order of the Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, it is not at all forthcoming as to how the construction obtaining at the site carried out by the petitioner came to be accounted for by the said court and for what reason the said aspect was omitted to be taken into consideration. 60. In directing maintenance of status-quo by both parties with respect to the nature, user and possession of the suit plot, the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu omitted to clarify as to what was the status-quo obtaining to be preserved with respect to the said plot as against the facts and circumstances available on record warranting to be appreciated that the petitioner had a building construction in currency at the site and that to that extent the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib at no point of time put any contest to that situation. 61. 61. The photographs of the site placed on record of this file exhibit situation in thousand words that the ground floor level construction is being obtaining at the site of the plot in reference, to which the respondent No. 1 in his plaint at no point of time ever adverted to as to how come if such a state of construction is obtaining at the site of the alleged suit plot then how a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was being pressed into service and how come he was still interested in seeking a temporary injunction was being pressed into service in restraining the petitioner in particular from interfering in the peaceful possession and ownership of the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib qua the plot in reference when the very interference if it is so as per the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib has taken place to set in a different fact situation than the one with respect to which the respondent No. 1-Ashok Singh Chib was intending to have an injunction against the petitioner from the court below. 62. Thus, on the cumulative appreciation and understanding of the all the facts and circumstances of the case, the court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Svt., 1977 in a misconceived and unwarranted manner to upset the well discretioned order passed by the trial court in rejecting the temporary injunction application of the respondent No. 1- Ashok Singh Chib. 63. This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction vested and reserved under article 227 of the Constitution of India is well within its domain to examine as to whether a judicial adjudication, be of final or interlocutory nature, is perversity afflicted or free as perversity and judicial adjudication are antithesis. Therefore, if a subordinate court, trial court of appellate court, goes astray in exercise of its jurisdiction in dealing and deciding a lis, be in its formative adjudication or final adjudication, and an aggrieved party does come forward to complain and agitate the transgression of the court below to this Court for its jurisdiction by invoking article 227 of the Constitution of India, then this Court is duty bound to examine and carry out catharsis with respect to impugned adjudication. 64. 64. In the light of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed by setting aside order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the Court of learned Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu on File No. 82/Appeal and, accordingly, the order dated 16.10.2021 passed by the Court of Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu is upheld. 65. Disposed of.