Civil Revision No.2953 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2953 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:05.05.2010 Sukhmander Kaur & Ors. .... petitioners Versus Ripudaman Singh & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.A.K.Khunger,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the courts below whereby their prayer for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit has been rejected. Both the courts below while passing the impugned order have observed that in this case provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act are applicable to any alienation made by the respondents during the pendency of the suit and thus application was dismissed. Before this court, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the principles of natural justice, equity and fairplay and the impugned order will lead to multiplicity of litigation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It is well settled that the superior court should be slow in upsetting the findings of the courts below on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Civil Revision No.2953 of 2010(O & M) 2 Procedure Code and should not substitute its own opinion of the courts below. It is well settled that the power of the Court under Article 227 is limited to see that the Court below functions within the limit of its authority or its jurisdiction and the same is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals. It is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bound of their authority. I find support, in my aforesaid view, from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of Hills Division, and Appeals Assam, AIR 1958 SC 398 and Nibaran Chandra Bag vs.Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd.Yunus vs.Mohd.Mustaqim and others(1983)4 SCC 566, observed as under: "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeking that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct as error apparent on the fact of the record, much less an error of law. For this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision.” Civil Revision No.2953 of 2010(O & M) 3 Moreover while rejecting the prayer of the petitioners courts below have already observed that in this case doctrine of lis pendense shall apply to any alienation made by the respondent during the pendency of the suit. In this view of the matter, adequate safeguard has been taken by the courts below to prevent the multiplicity of the litigation. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 05.05.2010 neenu