Civil Revision No.4584 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4584 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 29, 2011 Rajesh Kumar .....Petitioner v. Devender and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.18062-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4584 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside impugned order dated 22.4.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rewari, vide which application filed by petitioner-defendant for framing additional issue 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by respondent-plaintiff against the present petitioner-defendant no.3 and pro forma respondents-defendants Civil Revision No.4584 of 2011(O&M) -2- no.2 and 3 to the effect that release deed dated 14.6.2004 and subsequent mutation dated 29.12.2004 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of petitioner-defendant no.3 and respondent no.3-defendant no.2 regarding the land in dispute is illegal, null and void on the ground that the land in dispute was joint Hindu Family property and respondent no.1-plaintiff was having 1/4th share in the same and hence, defendant no.1 was having no right to execute the release deed. Suit was contested by petitioner-defendant no.3 by denying the fact that the property in dispute is a Joint Hindu Family property. It is also denied that the same is a ancestral property. Rather the plea has been taken that the same was a self acquired property of defendant no.1. At the same time a vague plea was taken that parties are governed by custom in the matter of alienation and succession without specifying the alleged custom. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the release deed registered Vasika No.1916 dated 14.6.08 and corresponding mutation No.1834 is wrong, illegal, null and void? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation of acts? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts Civil Revision No.4584 of 2011(O&M) -3- from the Courts? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD 8. Relief.” Evidence of respondent-plaintiff was concluded. Petitioner- defendant had taken many opportunities for evidence and thereafter the present application for framing additional issue regarding custom was filed, which was declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant no.3 that it was the duty of the Court to frame proper issue and that issue regarding custom should have been framed. Comprehensive issue no.1 has been framed by learned trial Court. It is for the petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence to rebut the same. When petitioner-defendant had taken specific plea that the property in the hands of defendant no.1 was self acquired property and when the alleged custom has also not been specifically pleaded, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that application filed by petitioner-defendant is not a bonafide one and the same is filed just to delay the decision of present suit as the same has been filed after availing so many opportunities for evidence. 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 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 Civil Revision No.4584 of 2011(O&M) -4- 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. 29.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge