CR No. 2223 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2223 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.4.2011 Raj Rani ...Petitioner Versus Uttam Sarangal @ Raju and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Kavita Sharma, Advocate for the respondents *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 1.2.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalandhar vide order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) vide which application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that during pendency of the present suit, a compromise was effected between the parties. Even one of the plaintiffs Sunita Rani @ CR No. 2223 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Sumitra had made a statement that she did not want to proceed further with the present suit in view of the said compromise. The present petitioner has also admitted the said compromise in the written reply and however, took the plea that the terms and conditions of the compromise have not been fulfilled by the present respondents-defendants. Written compromise has been placed on record. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the compromise, even the First Information Report, which was got registered against the petitioner's husband has also been quashed by this Court. It is further contended that ejectment petition filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner was also got dismissed as withdrawn. It is also contended that respondents have already fulfilled all the terms and conditions as per compromise and however, the present petitioner-plaintiff has not withdrawn the suit as per compromise. Hence in view of these facts, both the courts have declined the relief for ad-interim injunction to the petitioner-plaintiff. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil), 147 by Hon'ble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This court can interfere only when 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. CR No. 2223 of 2011 (O&M) 3 There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. April 20, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE