IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7319 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 10, 2011. Jaspal Kaur ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Arjan Singh ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 12.08.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana in miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 22 dated 28.07.2008, titled as ‘Arjan Singh v. Jaspal Kaur’, Annexure P7 and for staying the operation of order dated 12.08.2010 during pendency of present revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order dated 12.08.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. CR No.7319 of 2010 Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petitioner are that, respondent-plaintiff Arjan Singh is owner in possession of the land in dispute. Petitioner-defendant is wife of nephew of plaintiff. Plaintiff is 82 years of age and residing with his wife at village Faizgarh, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, who is suffering from paralyses. He is issueless. Plaintiff in order to render services to his wife arranged the defendant @`1000/- to maintain her. Due to the satisfactory service of the defendant, the plaintiff promised the defendant that he will transfer 3 Biswas of land situated in the Abadi of the village in her name. In the month of December, 2007 the defendant brought the plaintiff at Khanna and asked the plaintiff to execute a writing in her name as per the above-stated promise. However, defendant got executed some documents in fraudulent manner from plaintiff transferring land in her favour. After approaching Halqa Patwari plaintiff came to know that the defendant by playing a fraud upon him and taking the advantage of faith and trust of the plaintiff, got executed a gift deed in her name and on the basis of said deed she got mutation No. 1549 entered, whereas no such gift deed was executed by the plaintiff and the possession was not delivered to the defendant. The gift deed is result of mistrust and fraud by the defendant. Plaintiff also came to know that the defendant also got registered a will in her name from the plaintiff and hence, he got the said will cancelled. Plaintiff requested defendant to treat the said gift deed as null and void. However, defendant raised a threat to dispossess him of the property. Hence, the present suit was filed by plaintiff for decree for declaration to the effect that said gift deed dated 26.12.2007 registered with Sub Registrar, Khanna allegedly executed by plaintiff is null and void and not binding upon the legal rights of the plaintiff and is liable to be cancelled. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil 2 CR No.7319 of 2010 Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) was also filed by the plaintiff restraining defendant from alienating suit property in any manner and dispossessing plaintiff from the suit property during pendency of the suit except in due course of law. The suit as well as application was contested by respondent- defendant taking the plea that the gift deed was validly executed and possession of the land in dispute is with petitioner-defendant. Learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Khanna decided the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC of respondent-plaintiff directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession of suit property during pendency of suit. Respondent-plaintiff filed appeal against the said order, which was decided by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned order dated 12.08.2010 holding that prima facie respondent-plaintiff has been able to prove his possession of the property in dispute on basis of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari and hence, the present petitioner-defendant was restrained from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from suit property except in due course of law. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is recital in the gift deed vide which possession of the land in dispute was handed over to her by respondent-plaintiff and that during pendency of appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana entry regarding said gift deed was also made in the column of remarks in the Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 and that order dated 18.09.2009 was also passed by Collector, Ludhiana ordering for sanctioning of mutation in favour of present petitioner on the basis of gift deed executed by respondent-plaintiff at the same time clarifying that parties are to abide by any order passed by Civil Court, which is pending regarding the property in dispute. Hence, it is contended that as both the parties are claiming 3 CR No.7319 of 2010 possession of the property in dispute, learned trial Court has rightly ordered for maintaining status quo regarding possession. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the alleged gift deed is result of fraud and that possession of land in dispute was never handed over by respondent-plaintiff and that, in fact, in the garb of alleged gift deed, which was got executed by present petitioner-defendant from respondent-plaintiff by committing fraud and by misrepresentation by exercising undue influence, the present petitioner wants to forcibly dispossess the respondent-plaintiff from the land in dispute. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. At this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact that as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent- plaintiff if ad-interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. A careful perusal of impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana shows that revenue entries regarding possession of the property in dispute are in favour of respondent-plaintiff till today. He is shown to be owner in possession of the suit property in Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari till today. Khasra Girdawari entries have not been changed so far. There is presumption regarding the entries in Jamabandi being correct. Merely on the ground that there is recital in the gift deed regarding the possession of the property on the basis of which mutation has been sanctioned, it cannot be said at this stage that respondent-plaintiff has been dispossessed from his land. He is an old person. Hence, he is having right to protect his possession. Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 4 CR No.7319 of 2010 This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. In my considered view, it is not such a case where discretion exercised by learned Additional District Judge in passing the impugned order dated 12.08.2010 restraining the present petitioner-defendant from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from suit property except in due course of law should be interfered. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. However, it is made clear that that nothing observed herein shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) January 10, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 5