Civil Revision No.360 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.360 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 25, 2011 Bhup Singh .....Petitioner v. Surjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.1883-84-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P5 to P7. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.1443-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.360 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 8.1.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned trial Court, vide which application under Order I rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') filed by applicant-respondent nos.17 to 20 for impleading them as a party in the present suit was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. The suit Civil Revision No.360 of 2011 (O&M) -2- property was also subject matter of judgment and decree dated 23.3.1996, which is in favour of present applicant-respondent nos.17 to 20. It has also been observed by learned trial Court that as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05, in the ownership column, suit property stands in the name of applicant-respondent nos.17 to 20, whereas plaintiff is shown to be in possession of the suit property as per the revenue record. The only point contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide decree dated 26.7.2000, Will dated 10.6.1942, on the basis of which petitioner is claiming ownership, was set aside. However, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the said question would be decided only after the evidence is led by both the parties. In view of these facts, applicant-respondent nos.17 to 20 are necessary party for proper decision of present suit. No prejudice is going to be caused to petitioner-plaintiff if they are ordered to be impleaded as a party to the suit. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial court in passing the impugned order by allowing the application filed by applicant-respondent nos.17 to 20 to implead them as a party and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 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, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 25.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.360 of 2011 (O&M) -3-