Civil Revision No.2280 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2280 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 2, 2011 Mahinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Sunder and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing of order dated 18.9.2010, Annexure P4, and order dated 17.12.2010, Annexure P5, vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for ad interim injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by learned trial Court and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned both the Courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff is claiming ownership and possession of the plot in dispute on the basis of a sale deed executed in his favour by Smt.Mamta Bhatia, who had purchased the said plot from Smt.Kiran Devi, who, in turn had purchased it from Smt.Neela Dheer, and who had purchased it from Civil Revision No.2280 of 2011(O&M) -2- Sunil Kumar. Sunil Kumar had based his title on the plot in dispute on the basis of judgment and decree dated 25.10.1990 and, however, the said decree pertains to a plot in Village Saran and not to a plot in Village Gonchhi. In subsequent sale deeds it has been mentioned that the plot is situated in village Gonchhi, i.e., plot in dispute. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that when original owner Sunil Kumar was not owner of the plot situated in village Gonchhi and he was owner of the plot situated in Village Saran, subsequent vendees cannot be said to have acquired the title over the plot in dispute. Respondents-defendants have taken the plea that the plot in dispute was purchased by Hari Chand from previous owner vide registered sale deed and after his death the property was inherited by family members of Hari Chand. They also sold a portion of the said property to Smt.Saroj Devi, wife of respondent-defendant no.3-Ashok Kumar and hence, Smt.Saroj Devi and two daughters of Hari Chand are continuing in possession of the same. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that it has been wrongly mentioned in the judgment and decree passed in favour of Sunil Kumar that the property pertains to Village Saran and rather the property belongs to Village Gonchhi. However, at this stage, this plea cannot be accepted. Law is well settled that at the time of granting ad interim injunction order, prima face case, balance of convenience and the fact as to whether an irreparable loss would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff if ad interim injunction order is not granted, is to be seen. As the petitioner has failed to show prima facie case in his favour, hence, it cannot be said that Civil Revision No.2280 of 2011(O&M) -3- any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. 2.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge