JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the appellant is directed against order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar [“the trial court”] in file No.60/Misc tilted “Mst. Shameema & Anr. vs. Mst. Noreen & Ors.” whereby the trial court has disposed of the application for grant of ad-interim relief and directed the defendants in the suit not to interfere with the suit property i.e. land measuring 02 kanals 14 marlas comprising of Survey No.219 in Estate Brain. The plaintiffs in the suit have been directed to file an undertaking before the trial court, that in case they ultimately fail to prove their case before the Court, they shall dismantle the construction, if any, raised by them during the pendency of the suit at their own cost and handover the vacant possession to the defendant No.3 if he succeeds in establishing his case. The plaintiffs have also been directed not to create any third party interest in the suit. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondents 1 and 2, who shall be hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs" for convenience, filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Mst. Nasreena and five others. The appellant herein was arrayed as party/defendant No.3 in the suit and shall hereinafter be referred to as such. In the suit, the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners in possession of the subject land which they have purchased by virtue of three different sale deeds executed by the vendors in their favour on 13th of May, 2010 with respect to land measuring 01 kanal under Khewat No.34, Khata No.199, dated 4th July, 2012 for land measuring 04 kanals under Khasra No.219-min Khewat No.34 and dated 13th May, 2010 for land measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas falling under Survey No.219, Khewat No.34 Khata No.199 situated at Mouza Brane Batgo Tehsil and District Srinagar. It is alleged that the defendant No.3-appellant herein has been making attempts to encroach upon the subject land claiming it to be the part of the land purchased by him by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 2005 with respect of land measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas. 3. It is alleged that the defendant No.3-appellant herein has been making attempts to encroach upon the subject land claiming it to be the part of the land purchased by him by virtue of a sale deed executed in the year 2005 with respect of land measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas. 3. In the backdrop of aforesaid grievance projected by the plaintiffs in their suit, following reliefs have been claimed in the suit : (i) A decree for declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 14 Marlas falling under survey No. 219 situated at Mouza Brane Tehsil and District Srinagar on the strength of the sale deeds dated 13th day of May, 2010, 4th July, 2012 and 13th May, 2010 (supra) and it be further declared that the defendants 1 to 3 have absolutely no concern with the land purchased by the plaintiffs and that any document upon which reliance has been placed by the defendant No.3 is inconsequential and ineffective against the rights and interests of the plaintiffs. (ii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 3 from causing any interference into the peaceful user of the property by the plaintiffs or proclaiming any right over the same. The defendants 1 and 2 be also restrained from creating any clout over the ownership rights of the plaintiffs vis-a-vis the suit land. The official defendants be also directed by virtue of an appropriate decree to take appropriate measures and action as is required to be taken under law for the purpose of upholding the majesty of law and maintain rule of law and prevent damage being caused to the person of the plaintiffs, their family members and the property owned by them. 4. On being put on notice, the defendant No.3 has entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement. While refuting the averments made in the plaint, the defendant No.3 has pleaded that he is owner in possession of land measuring 01 kanal 10 marlas falling under Khewat No.59 Khasra Nos.4153/3817/145, 3813/145, 4161/3819/147, Khewat No.284, Khasra Nos.3816/145, 4169/146 and 3812/145, which the defendant No.3 claims to have purchased from Muneer-ud-Din by virtue of a registered sale deed along-with Naqsha Amini. It is pleaded by the defendant No.3 that he has been enjoying peaceful possession of his land and it is only after seven years, the plaintiffs have filed a bogus suit for seeking declaration and injunction from the trial court. 5. The suit came up for consideration before the trial court for the first time on 24.11.2012, when the trial court, while issuing notice to the defendants for appearance and filing of the written statement, also provided by way of ad-interim order that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession of the suit property. 6. The application for interim relief again came up for consideration before the trial court on 21.12.2013, when the trial court, with the consent of both the parties as also to elucidate the position on spot, directed Tehsildar concerned to get the suit property demarcated by any revenue officer not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar. It was further directed, that demarcation may be made in presence of the parties and compliance report be submitted to the court within a period of fifteen days. In compliance to the order dated 21.12.2013, Tehsildar North, Srinagar, constituted a team of officers for demarcation of the land. After completing the exercise of demarcation, Tehsildar submitted his report on 3rd April, 2014. 7. The application for interim relief, which was pending consideration, was taken up by the trial court and after hearing both the parties and in the light of material available on record including the demarcation report submitted by Tehsildar North, Srinagar, the impugned order was passed. 8. The impugned order is assailed by the appellant-defendant No.3, inter alia, on the grounds that the trial court could not have relied upon the demarcation report dated 3rd April, 2014, submitted by Tehsildar North, Srinagar, for the following reasons : (i) That the demarcation exercise was conducted and the report was prepared by a revenue officer below the rank of Naib Tehsildar and, therefore, the same ought to have been rejected. (ii) That as mandated by interim order passed by the trial court on 21.12.2013, the exercise of demarcation was to be carried out in presence of parties whereas no notice of such demarcation was ever given to the defendant No.3. (ii) That as mandated by interim order passed by the trial court on 21.12.2013, the exercise of demarcation was to be carried out in presence of parties whereas no notice of such demarcation was ever given to the defendant No.3. (iii) That the demarcation report could have been considered by the trial court only for the purposes of elucidating the evidence on record and should not have been made use of for confirming or vacating the interim order of status quo. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Indisputably, the suit of the plaintiffs is restricted to the suit land covered by three registered sale deeds executed on 13th of May, 2010 and 4th July, 2012. The land covered by these three sale deeds is different from the land claimed to have been purchased by the defendant No.3. The Khewat and Khasra Nos. of the land measuring 01 kanal 10 marlas claimed to have been purchased by the defendant No.3 are entirely different from the Khewat, Khata and Khasra Nos. from where the plaintiffs have purchased their land. Probably, the dispute arose because of non-availability of proper identity and demarcation of the lands purchased by the parties. As is evident from the reading of the plaint, the dispute was initially with respect to only 04 marlas of land. The plaintiffs claimed that these 04 marlas of land were purchased by virtue of sale deed dated 4th July, 2012 and was comprising of Khasra No.219-min Khewat No.34 whereas defendant No.3 asserted that these 04 marlas were part of land measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas which he had purchased from the vendor falling under Khewat No.59 Khasra Nos.4153/3817/145, 3813/145, 4161/3819/147, Khewat No.284, Khasra Nos.3816/145, 4169/146 and 3812/145. The dispute between the parties could have been appropriately and very conveniently resolved by the revenue authorities by making demarcation of the lands belonging to the plaintiffs on one hand and the defendant No.3 on the other hand. This would have been the end of the dispute. 11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the plaintiffs apprehending forcible encroachment on their land filed the suit for declaration and injunction before the trial court. This would have been the end of the dispute. 11. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the plaintiffs apprehending forcible encroachment on their land filed the suit for declaration and injunction before the trial court. A clear claim was put up by the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of land measuring 02 kanals 14 marlas purchased through different sale deeds and, therefore, are entitled to a decree of declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant No.3 from interfering in their peaceful possession. The defendant No.3, as is apparent from the reading of the written statement, neither disputed three sale deeds by virtue of which the plaintiffs had purchased the suit land nor did he dispute that the land purchased by him measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas was not part of the land purchased by the plaintiffs through three different sale deeds executed by the vendor in their favour. Rather it is the specific stand of the defendant No.3 that the land measuring 01 kanal and 10 marlas purchased by him falls in different khasra numbers and is not comprising in Khasra No.219. The defendant No.3 even denied having caused any interference with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land either directly or indirectly. True it is that in view of the dispute raised by the defendant No.3 with regard to identity of the land and ambiguous averments made by the plaintiffs in paragraph (3) of the plaint, the trial court, with the consent of both the parties and in a bid to resolve the dispute, directed Tehsildar to conduct demarcation of the suit property. This was done by the trial court to find out as to whether the plaintiffs were in excess of the land purchased by them or that they were in possession of some land belonging to defendant No.3. There is no direction issued by the trial court to conduct demarcation of the land belonging to the defendant No.3. Perhaps such direction would have further eased the situation. 12. Be that as it may, the demarcation was conducted by a team headed by the Naib Tehsildar and it was found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land purchased by them. It is true that the demarcation report was objected to by the defendant No.3 on the grounds enumerated hereinabove. 12. Be that as it may, the demarcation was conducted by a team headed by the Naib Tehsildar and it was found that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land purchased by them. It is true that the demarcation report was objected to by the defendant No.3 on the grounds enumerated hereinabove. However, the trial court not only considered the demarcation report submitted by Tehsildar but also took note of the entire case set up by both the sides and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to use their land being prima facie owners in possession thereof. It is in these circumstances that the trial court modified the ad-interim exparte order of status quo and restrained the defendants from interfering or causing any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were permitted to raise construction on the land subject to the undertaking that in case they fail, they would demolish the same at their own risk and cost and hand over the vacant possession to the defendant No.3 if he succeeds to prove his title to the suit land. In the given facts and circumstances, this was the best order that could have been passed by the trial court. The trial court has taken extra precaution by providing that the plaintiffs shall not create any third party interest in the suit land. The order impugned not only preserves the lis but maintains an equilibrium between the parties. On one hand the trial court has permitted the party in possession to utilise the suit land for beneficial purpose and on the other hand has protected the interests of the defendant No.3 that he would be entitled to vacant possession of the land if ultimately suit of the plaintiffs fails and the defendant No.3 succeeds in establishing his claim over the suit property. 13. Both sides have relied upon several judgments in support of their contentions. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved and settled legal parameters governing grant of interim injunction, I deem it a superfluous exercise to deal with the case law on the subject. 13. Both sides have relied upon several judgments in support of their contentions. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved and settled legal parameters governing grant of interim injunction, I deem it a superfluous exercise to deal with the case law on the subject. It is trite law that the interim injunctions or the interlocutory orders, to preserve lis and maintain equilibrium between the parties in a suit, are passed by the civil court in its discretion and such discretion cannot be readily interfered with by the Appellate Court unless there is demonstrated perversity in the exercise of such discretion. In the instant case the facts are not much in dispute. It is amply clear that the suit property claimed by the plaintiffs as their proprietary land is different from the land claimed to be owned and possessed by the defendant No.3. There could be a dispute with regard to the identity of some portion of the land. However, the demarcation report has clarified the aforesaid position but the same is subject to objections from the defendant No.3 and its consideration at the time of final decision by the trial court. The trial court has considered the report only with a view to make a prima facie opinion with regard to possession of the plaintiffs over the subject land claimed to have been purchased by them through three different registered sale deeds. Paragraph (3) of the plaint, which was strongly relied upon by the defendant No.3, does create some confusion as to whether 04 marlas of land claimed to be in possession of the plaintiffs is actually part of the land purchased by the plaintiffs or is part of the land purchased by the defendant No.3. However, this dispute is liable to be adjudicated upon and determined in the suit. The impugned order, in my considered opinion, was the perfect order that ought to have been passed by any civil court in given facts and circumstances obtaining in a suit. 14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.