Civil Revision No.15 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.15 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 22, 2011 R.S.Pahwa .....Petitioner v. Shree Ram and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harpawan Kumar Arora, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.11.2010, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which two applications filed by petitioner, i.e., one for amendment of written statement and the another for framing of additional issues have been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of property in dispute against present petitioner-defendant on the brief allegations that they are co- owners of the property by way of purchase vide registered sale deed dated 7.5.1997 from previous owner, namely, M/s Technological Consultant Civil Revision No.15 of 2011(O&M) -2- Centre (hereinafter to be referred as `TCC'), who went into voluntary liquidation and Shri J.B.Dada Chand Ji, who was appointed its liquidator, sold the same to respondents-plaintiffs. Petitioner was employee of M/s TCC and was inducted in the property in dispute as licencee being employee. However, after the company went into liquidation and after the property was purchased by the plaintiffs, licence was automatically revoked. However, petitioner failed to hand over the possession of the property in dispute to the respondents-plaintiffs. A notice for termination of licence was also issued by plaintiffs to petitioner-defendant, however, when he refused to hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiffs, the present suit for possession was filed. Suit was contested by petitioner-defendant admitting the fact that he was employee of M/s TCC, which has gone into voluntary liquidation and that Shri J.B.Dada Chand Ji was appointed as its Liquidator. However, it is denied that he was inducted in suit property as licencee. Rather, the plea has been taken that he was provided with a residence by M/s TCC. A vague plea has also been taken that a separate rent agreement was also executed between M/s TCC and the defendant and, however, no such rent agreement was produced and even column of rent has been left blank in the written statement. The date of alleged continuation of tenancy has also not been mentioned. Terms and conditions of tenancy have also not been mentioned. Rather he has filed counter claim challenging the sale-deed executed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs by Shri J.B.Dada Chand Ji. Learned trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication: Civil Revision No.15 of 2011(O&M) -3- “1. Whether the notice under Section 106 T.P. Act was served upon the defendant? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for possession by way of ejectment of the defendant from the premises in dispute? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- being the damages or compensation? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of counter-claim as prayed for? OPD 7. Relief.” The evidence was adduced by both the parties in support of their respective contentions before learned trial Court. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs against the present petitioner-defendant and decree for possession by way of ejectment of petitioner-defendant was issued in their favour against which appeal has been filed by present petitioner-defendant, which is pending before learned first appellate Court. While the appeal was pending for hearing, applications were filed by present petitioner-defendant, i.e., one for framing of additional issues and the another for amendment of written statement. However, as both the applications were inter-connected, the same were decided by learned first appellate Court vide impugned order and dismissed both the applications. By way of amendment of written statement plea sought to be Civil Revision No.15 of 2011(O&M) -4- taken is that civil courts have no jurisdiction to try the suit as petitioner is in possession of the suit property as tenant since the time of inception of the tenancy and the following additional issues were also sought to be framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property? 2. Whether the defendant was inducted as licencee by M/s TCC Ltd. as alleged ? 3. Whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the present suit?” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that learned first appellate Court has not discussed any grounds on the basis of which his prayer for amendment of written statement has been declined. It has also been contended that as plea of tenancy was taken by petitioner-defendant and that the proper issues were not framed and, hence, he could not lead any evidence. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that even as per statement of petitioner- defendant given before learned trial Court the property in dispute was given to him by the company in which he was employed being employee and that only vague plea regarding tenancy was taken by him without even mentioning the alleged rate of rent and without producing the alleged rent note. Hence, it is contended that present applications have been filed just to delay the decision of the present appeal, as he has been continuing in unauthorised occupation of the premises in dispute. A wider issue has been framed by learned trial Court as Issue no.2. Learned trial Court decided Issues no.1 to 3 and 6 together being inter-connected. Present petitioner-defendant had taken the plea that he had Civil Revision No.15 of 2011(O&M) -5- replied to respondents-plaintiffs that dues of Rs.1,26,306/- of petitioner- defendant lying with M/s TCC be adjusted against sale of suit property at the price charged from other employees for similar type of houses. Hence, when petitioner-defendant wanted to purchase the said house like other similarly placed employees from subsequent vendee, after the company went into liquidation, it cannot be said that he was inducted as a tenant. No alleged rent note was placed on record by petitioner-defendant. No particulars of tenancy have been pleaded. Even alleged rate of rent has not been mentioned. There is no evidence that he used to pay any rent to the company. The plea of petitioner-defendant since the very beginning was that he was allotted the said premises being employee of the Company. Hence, no other issue was required to be framed on the basis of this kind of vague pleadings of petitioner-defendant. Moreover para 11 of the plaint regarding jurisdiction has not been disputed by petitioner in the written statement. In para 11 of the plaint, it has been specifically mentioned by respondents-plaintiffs that the property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Faridabad and that the Courts at Faridabad has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that application filed by petitioner-defendant for amendment of written statement and for framing of additional issues are bona fide one or that the same are necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy in dispute. Rather there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that the applications have been moved just to delay the decision of the pending appeal as petitioner-defendant has been continuing in possession of the premises in dispute. Civil Revision No.15 of 2011(O&M) -6- Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned first appellate Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 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 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 that 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 pending appeal by learned first appellate Court on merits. 22.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter/ Yes/No.