Civil Revision No.4310 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4310 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 19, 2011 Baljit Kaur .....Petitioner v. Surjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.17101-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4310 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.6.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hoshiarpur, vide which application filed by present petitioner-applicant for impleading her as a party to the suit 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. The suit pertains to the year 1998. The same was filed for separate possession by way of partition by respondents-plaintiffs against Jasbir Singh, respondent no.7, who is none else but husband of present petitioner. He had been vigorously contesting the suit. Property has been Civil Revision No.4310 of 2011(O&M) -2- described as situated within abadi, not forming part of any agricultural land and not bearing any khasra number. Suit has been filed for partition of non- agricultural land and residential property. Though initially no stand was taken by husband of present petitioner-applicant that the property in dispute is part of agricultural land, however, later on, on his request, written statement was allowed to be amended, in which he had taken the plea that property mentioned in the headnote `A' of the plaint is comprised in khasra number and he was to prove the property mentioned in headnote `A' of the plaint comprised in that khasra number. Respondents-plaintiffs filed revision petition against the said order, allowing application of husband of petitioner to amend the written statement, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 4.8.2010 directing the trial Court to dispose of the case within one year. Thereafter it has been alleged that some portion of some khasra numbers has been purchased by present petitioner-applicant vide sale deed dated 21.10.2010 from previous owner. However, firstly it has not been shown that the property which has been purchased by present petitioner, who is wife of original defendant, is also the property in dispute. Moreover, even if it is taken that the same also forms part of the property in dispute, she being subsequent vendee cannot be said to be a necessary party. Her husband has been contesting the suit since the very beginning vigorously. No relief has been claimed by respondents-plaintiffs against her. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that it is for the respondents-plaintiffs to prove that the property has been properly described. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Civil Revision No.4310 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 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. 19.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge