Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 27: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court order in a long-drawn land dispute from Mendhar in Poonch district, reiterating that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised as an appellate power to re-examine facts or substitute judicial conclusions.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who upheld the order dated September 4, 2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mendhar, in the case Mumtaz Hussain Versus Satya Devi, holding that no jurisdictional error or perversity was made out warranting interference.
The dispute concerns land measuring 6 kanals and 18 marlas situated at village Gohlad, Tehsil Mendhar. Petitioner Satya Devi, aged 73, claimed ownership as the sole legal heir of her mother, asserting that she inherited the property through a registered will executed in 1986 and that mutation was attested in her favour in 1994.
According to her, she remained in peaceful possession of the land until certain respondents allegedly secured entries in revenue records relating to a small portion of the property and began interfering with her possession in 2012. This triggered multiple rounds of civil litigation, including suits for permanent prohibitory injunction, appeals before district courts, review proceedings and subsequent suits filed by both sides over the same subject matter.
An appellate court had earlier decreed the suit in Satya Devi’s favour and restrained the respondents from interfering with her possession. Despite this, fresh proceedings continued, prompting the petitioner to argue that later suits were legally barred.
During trial proceedings in a subsequent suit, Satya Devi filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. She contended that the suit was barred by law in view of Section 10 CPC and the doctrine of res judicata, since the dispute regarding the same land had already been adjudicated.
The trial court dismissed the application, observing that the conditions necessary for rejection of a plaint were not satisfied. Challenging this order, the petitioner invoked Article 227 jurisdiction of the High Court, alleging failure of the trial court to properly consider the legal bar pleaded by her.
Examining the matter, the High Court held that rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is permissible only in specific circumstances expressly provided under law. Justice Nargal observed that while deciding such an application, courts must confine themselves strictly to the averments contained in the plaint and documents accompanying it. The defence taken by the defendant cannot be examined at that preliminary stage.
The High Court clarified that the expression “barred by law” requires the legal prohibition to be apparent from the plaint itself. The plea of res judicata, the High Court noted, involves mixed questions of fact and law requiring examination of earlier pleadings, issues and judgments. “Such determination cannot ordinarily be undertaken at the stage of deciding an application for rejection of the plaint”, the High Court added.
The High Court further observed that the earlier judgment relied upon by the petitioner had not attained finality and remained subject to appellate scrutiny. “Therefore, res judicata could not be invoked to reject the suit at the threshold”, Justice Nargal added.
Another significant finding was that the petitioner had earlier sought stay of proceedings under Section 10 CPC, which had already been rejected. Having failed in that attempt, the same issue could not be re-agitated indirectly through another application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The High Court viewed the subsequent application as legally unsustainable.
Emphasising constitutional principles, the High Court reiterated, “powers under Article 227 are supervisory and meant only to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible or because a party is dissatisfied with a judicial order”.
Justice Nargal observed that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal under Article 227 and cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or grave miscarriage of justice.
Finding that the trial court had correctly applied settled legal principles and passed a reasoned order, the High Court held that no interference was warranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit, and the order dated September 4, 2025 was upheld.
The post HC upholds trial court order in Poonch land dispute, clarifies scope of Article 227 powers appeared first on Daily Excelsior.