Civil Revision No.578 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.578 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2011 Jagdish Singh .....Petitioner v. Balbir Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.2309-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.578 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 27.11.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Mansa, vide which appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 3.11.2010, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mansa, allowing the application for ad interim injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering in his possession over land measuring 31 kanals 10 marlas, bearing khasra No.3//19/2 (0-4), 21/1/1 (0-10), 4//1 (8-0), 10(6-16), 10//2(8-0), 9(8-0), comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.4/10 as per jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 situated within Revenue Estate of village Maujo Khurd, Tehsil Mansa, on the plea that he is Civil Revision No.578 of 2011 (O&M) -2- in possession of the same as Gair Marausi and that present petitioner- defendant claiming himself as co-owner on the basis of sale-deed dated 4.9.2009, executed in his favour by Harbans Kaur intends to interfere in his possession, for which he has got no legal right. On the same facts, an application for ad interim injunction was also filed by respondent-defendant. Petitioner-defendant contested the suit as well as the said application on the plea that there is no basis for the entry regarding respondent being in possession as Gair Marausi in the revenue record and hence he is having no right to seek injunction against him, who has become co-owner after its purchase. Learned trial Court after consideration of the documents passed the impugned order in its discretion allowing the application of the respondent-plaintiff restraining petitioner-defendant from interfering in his possession in a forcible and illegal manner during the pendency of the suit. Appeal filed by present petitioner-defendant against the said order was dismissed by learned appellate court, vide impugned order Annexure P6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that he is co-owner of the property in dispute as he has purchased a share of previous co-owner, i.e., Harbans Kaur, in the entire land and that respondent-plaintiff is having no right to remain in possession over the property in dispute and hence, he is having no right to seek injunction against him. He has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Chander v. Bhim Singh and others 2008(3) RCR (civil) 685; and also the judgments rendered in Chand Singh (dead) through Lrs v. Gangadhar, Vol.CXLII (2006-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 749 and Jit Singh v. Sardara Singh 2000(3) Civil Court Cases 0267. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned First appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-defendant by observing as under:- “ The plaintiff-respondent has claimed in possession of the suit land as Gair Marausi. Whether plaintiff is in possession as tenant or not is question of fact. The copies of jamabandi and khasra Girdawari show possession of plaintiff over the suit land. Defendant has claimed vendee of Harbans Kaur. Sale deed relied upon by defendant proved that he has not purchased Civil Revision No.578 of 2011 (O&M) -3- specific land. He has purchased share of Harbans Kaur out of total land. Although, in this sale deed vendor Harbans Kaur has mentioned about delivery of possession also but she has not specified the Khasra numbers transferred to the defendant. There is no other document on record to prove that Harbans Kaur was in possession of suit land. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has committed no illegality in the discretion exercised by learned trial Court.” As is clear from the aforementioned facts, respondent-plaintiff was to show that he is in possession of the land in dispute as Gair Marausi. He has been so recorded in the copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-08 in column no.5. At this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to respondent- plaintiff, if ad interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. It has been rightly observed by Courts below that at this stage, it cannot be said as to in which capacity respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute and as to whether any rent is being received by the owners or not. It has also been rightly observed by learned appellate Court that even as per the sale-deed on the basis of which right is being claimed by petitioner-defendant, he has not been recorded as in possession of any specific portion of the entire land. Rather he has been shown co-owner of the entire land and hence, when vendor was not in possession of any specific portion of land, it cannot be said that present petitioner-defendant has taken specific portion of the joint land and hence, it cannot be said that present petitioner-defendant has taken possession of any specific portion of the joint land. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below while exercising their discretion in restraining the petitioner- defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land in dispute except in accordance with law 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 Civil Revision No.578 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 27.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge