JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner-Peer Rattan Nath Mahant, Peer Kho Shiv Mandir, Jamwant Guffa, Jammu has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India through Peer Rajinder Nath Peer Kho Shiv Mandir, Jammu challenging order dated 23.01.2023 (for short “impugned order”) passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Jammu (for short "the appellate court") in the appeal titled as “Shri Dilbagh vs. The Temple Peer Kho and another”. 2. The facts emerging from the record are as under : The plaintiff/petitioner herein filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the defendant/ respondent herein seeking a decree of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction for restraining the defendant/respondent herein from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner herein qua land approximately 300 kanals covered under survey No. 345 min situated at Peer Kho Shiv Mandir, Jamwant Guffa, Jammu claiming to be under the continuous uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff/petitioner herein. In the suit (supra) filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein, it has been averred that the defendant/ respondent herein came to be engaged as a labourer for cultivating the suit land, however, the defendant/respondent herein attempted to take forcible possession of the suit land which attempt was foiled whereafter the defendant/respondent herein continued illegal and arbitrary encroachment upon a parcel of the land in question for the purposes of raising some construction, which too came to be resisted by the plaintiff/petitioner herein and the defendant/ respondent herein even did not accede to the request of the plaintiff/petitioner herein for illegally desisting taking over the possession of the land in question instead the defendant/respondent herein on 03.11.2013 turned down the request of the plaintiff/petitioner herein made for refraining from encroaching upon the land and instead got a notice issued against the plaintiff/petitioner herein through his counsel claiming therein to be in possession of the land measuring 29 kanals under survey No. 345 min out of the land in question and that the plaintiff/ petitioner herein thus, apprehended that the defendant/respondent herein will make every effort to defeat the rights of the plaintiff/petitioner herein qua the land in question and would continue to interfere into the uninterrupted possession thereof, necessitating the filing of the suit. Alongside the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner herein had filed an application for interim relief as well wherein the trial court passed an interim order on 13.11.2013 directing the parties to maintain status quo whereafter upon the appearance of the defendant/respondent herein and after filing of the written statement as well as objections to the suit and the application for interim relief respectively, the trial court disposed of the interim application in terms of order dated 20.12.2019 restraining the defendant/respondent herein from causing any sort of interference over the suit property till final disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the trial court, the defendant/respondent herein preferred an appeal before the appellate court which appeal came to be disposed of in terms of the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 holding that the appeal has merit and consequently allowed the same while setting aside the orders of the trial court dated 13.11.2013 and 20.11.2019 and consequently dismissed the application for interim relief filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein accompanying the suit as well. 3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved of the order dated 23.01.2023 and the same is impugned in the instant petition on the grounds urged in the petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the plaintiff/petitioner herein in the suit (supra) has claimed to be owner in possession of the land measuring 300 kanals covered under survey No. 345 min and in order to substantiate his claim has annexed a copy of revenue extract being khasra Girdawari commencing from the year 2010 till 2013 which would reflect therein the land covered under survey No. 345 min is Abadi Deh land under the possession and occupation of the plaintiff/petitioner herein; providing further therein that in terms of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu Chela Puran Nath stands appointed as Mahant of the Mandir Peer Kho Shiv Mandir, Jamwant Guffa, Jammu. 5. Record of the case also reveals that the defendant/ respondent herein in the written statement filed to the suit (supra) denied the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner herein qua the suit land and has stated that the defendant/respondent herein is in possession of land covered under survey No. 345 min measuring approximately 29 kanals since long whereupon the defendant/ respondent herein is growing vegetables. In support of the said claim, reliance has been placed on a site plan (Akas-e-Shajra) claimed to have been prepared by the Patwari concerned reflecting therein that the defendant/respondent herein is in possession of approximately 29 kanals of land. 6. It has further been averred in the written statement by the defendant/respondent herein that he being in possession of the land in question stands endorsed by the Patwari concerned and that there is no question of attempting to take possession of the land of the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The plea of the plaintiff/petitioner herein that the defendant/respondent herein had been engaged as a labourer for cultivating the land in question has also been denied in the written statement. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid rival claims of the parties, the moot question that would beg consideration of this Court in the instant petition would be as to whether the courts below proceeded to deal with the matter of grant of interim injunction in accordance with the principles and rules governing and regulating the injunction. 8. Law is no more res integra and stands settled that the primary purpose of granting interim relief is the preservation of property in dispute till legal rights and conflicting claims of the parties before the Court are adjudicated upon meaning thereby to evolve a workable formula required in a particular situation keeping in mind the pros and cons of the matter while striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests. 9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid fundamental principle of law and reverting back to the case in hand, as has been noticed in the preceding paras, the plaintiff/petitioner herein has lodged a claim in the suit supra qua land measuring 300 kanals covered under survey No. 345 min primarily based upon the revenue extract consisting of Khasra Girdawari commencing from year 2010 to 2013 whereas, on the contrary, while denying the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner herein, the defendant /respondent herein has lodged a claim in the written statement on a parcel of land measuring 29 kanals covered under survey No. 345 min fundamentally on the basis of an Akas-e-shajra/map prepared by the Patwari as also a Khasra Girdawari providing therein the defendant/respondent herein in possession of the said parcel of land. 10. 10. The trial court seemingly has not considered the application for interim relief having regard to the aforesaid principles governing and regulating the injunctions having overlooked the same. The appellate court as well while deciding the appeal preferred against the said restraint order by the defendant/respondent herein in the impugned order chose to set aside the orders of the trial court and proceeded even to dismiss the application for interim relief of the plaintiff/petitioner herein ironically expressing opinion on the merits of the case qua the nature of land, its determination under relevant revenue laws as also the veracity of the revenue record relied upon by the plaintiff/petitioner herein which expression of opinion could not have been made being impermissible in law, that too, by an appellate court hearing an appeal arising out of disposal of an application for interim relief as the power of the appellate court hearing such an appeal, in law, is circumscribed. The appellate court admittedly has erred having committed gross perversity and in the process caused failure of justice. To sum up both the courts below seemingly have not considered the matter in correct perspective. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, is inclined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under and in terms of the parameters set out by the Apex Court in case titled as “Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil” reported in 2010 (8) SCC 329 wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice. 12. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the appellate court is set aside along with the order dated 13.11.2013 and order dated 20.12.2019, as a consequence whereof the application for interim relief accompanying the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein is restored with a direction to the trial court to re-consider and re-visit the application for interim relief afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the parties. Till the trial court decide the application for interim relief as directed above afresh, parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the present position of the subject matter land. 13. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of any opinion as to the merits of the case pending before the trial court and observations, if any, made hereinabove shall be deemed to have been made in relation to the disposal of the instant petition alone. 14. Disposed of along with connected application(s).