C.M.No.2632-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5964 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.2632-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5964 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 31, 2011 Krishan Lal and another .....Petitioners v. Kaithal Improvement Trust, Kaithal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.2632-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record the copy of plaint and site plan, as Annexures P4 and P5. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.5964 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.8.2010, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, vide which application filed by the present petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') for impleading them as a party in these proceedings, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court vide which application filed by petitioner-applicants for C.M.No.2632-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5964 of 2010(O&M) -2- impleading them as a party has been dismissed. Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of present revision petition are that respondent nos.2 and 3 to 5, LRs of deceased Krishan Lal, plaintiffs purchased Plot No.41, measuring 160 square yards under the Development Scheme No.7 of respondent No.1-defendant Defunct Improvement Trust, Kaithal, (hereinafter to be referred as `Trust') in an auction which had taken place on 24.12.1981 and the same was allotted vide allotment letter dated 14.1.1982. They also purchased an area measuring 18.75 square yards vide receipt bearing serial No.37, Book No.30, dated 7.1.1985 and hence, total area of the above said plot is 178.75 square yards. After purchasing of the said plot, plaintiffs also raised construction of the house on the same and since then they have been continuing in possession of the same. However, present petitioner-applicants obtained some order from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, dated 14.9.2007 by filing a complaint and on the basis of the same, a notice has been issued by respondent no.1-defendant bearing No.159 dated 14.11.2008 without measuring the area of suit property and vide impugned notice directed respondent-plaintiffs to remove the alleged encroachment upon the area measuring 2.50” x 70'. It was also mentioned in the notice that on failure to do so, defendant- Trust would remove the construction. It is the said notice issued by respondent no.1-defendant - Trust, which has been challenged by respondent-plaintiffs in the suit seeking injunction order against respondent No.1-defendant from demolishing the property in dispute, as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint as well as shown in red colour in the site plan, without inspection by the competent authority and without measurement. Plea has also been taken that in case some minor excess area is found, the respondent-plaintiffs are ready to deposit the amount of minor excess area, as per Rules. The present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code has been filed by the present petitioners on the plea that they are owner of plot No.42, which adjoins plot No.41 belonging to respondent-plaintiffs and that they had purchased the same vide sale deed No.271/1 dated 16.4.2004, i.e., much after the purchase of plot No.41 and additional area by respondent-plaintiffs and much after the raising of construction over the C.M.No.2632-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5964 of 2010(O&M) -3- same. The said application was contested by respondent-plaintiffs and after hearing both the parties the same has been dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order, by observing as under:- “ It is apparent from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties that the applicant is owner of a different plot bearing No.42, whereas the present suit has been filed qua plot No.41 only. The relief, if any, to be granted to the plaintiff shall only be qua plot No.41. The applicant is at liberty to take recourse to any appropriate legal proceedings qua his own plot. Therefore, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the present suit as no relief has been sought against him. The application under disposal is therefore dismissed. To come up for evidence of the plaintiff, to be brought at his own responsibility on 16.12.2010.” Law is well settled that plaintiff is master of its own case. In the present case, plaintiffs have not sought any relief against present petitioners. They have sought relief only against respondent- Trust, who issued a notice to them for demolition of a portion of their constructed house. The present suit is regarding plot No.41, which was purchased by respondent-plaintiffs much earlier than plot No.42, which was purchased by present applicant-petitioners. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly observed that on these facts, it cannot be said that present petitioner- applicants are necessary party to be impleaded in the present proceedings. 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 by this Court. 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. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order by rejecting the application filed by present petitioners for impleading them as a party and that grave C.M.No.2632-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5964 of 2010(O&M) -4- injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 31.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge