Civil Revision No.387 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.387 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 20, 2011 Smt.Ritu .....Petitioner v. Pardeep Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.N.Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.1529-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.387 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.11.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar, Annexure P1, in Civil Suit No.186/ 17.9.2008, vide which application filed by present petitioner-defendant no.2 for rejection of plaint qua her under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code'), was dismissed. 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 respondent nos.1 and 2- plaintiffs filed the present suit against petitioner and respondent no.3-defendant no.1, on the ground that defendant no.1 had taken a loan of Rs.20 lacs from the plaintiffs and executed a registered mortgage deed No.1766 dated 20.5.2000 mortgaging his land in dispute as a security for repayment of the loan in favour of plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 did not repay the loan on demand. He executed an affidavit Civil Revision No.387 of 2011 (O&M) -2- dated 12.8.2000 to clear the loan amount by 25.8.2005 and however, did not clear the same and rather in the meantime, he executed a sale-deed of mortgage property in favour of present petitioner-defendant no.2, on 20.6.2008. ` The present suit has been filed by respondent-plaintiffs impleading defendant no.1, who had taken the loan and the present petitioner as defendant no.2, in whose favour the sale deed was executed after mortgaging the land in dispute in favour of respondent-plaintiffs. There is recital in the mortgage deed that defendant no.1 shall not sell the land during the subsistence of the mortgage. Hence, on these facts, it cannot be said that no cause of action arises against the present petitioner- defendant no.2. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in dismissing the prayer of present revision petitioner-defendant no.2 for rejection of plaint filed by respondent nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs qua her or 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. 20.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge