Civil Revision No.3192 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3192 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 26, 2011 Jatinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Krishan Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.B.S.Sra, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.12726-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3192 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.1.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, Annexure P9, vide which appeal filed by petitioner-plaintiff against order dated 15.5.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar, dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for grant of ad interim injunction order, 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 courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that predecessor-in-interest of present petitioner, namely, Gian Singh, Civil Revision No.3192 of 2011(O&M) -2- alongwith Manmohan Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from encroaching upon any portion of alleged rasta shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint on the ground that the same is the only approach to his land bearing khasra nos.147, 150 and 146 as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04. It has also been prayed that plaintiff no.1 is cultivating the said land, which is owned by him and his brother, i.e., plaintiff no.2, who is residing in United Kingdom. Respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 are closely related to them and they owned land comprising in Khasra nos.143 and 145. Defendant no.4 already raised some construction opposite to khasra no.143. Passage is being used by both the parties and however, defendants raised threat to encroach upon the said passage and hence, this suit. On similar facts, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for ad interim injunction order was also filed. Suit as well as application has been contested by respondents- defendants by taking specific plea that there is no such passage existing at the spot in the property in dispute and the property has also not been rightly depicted in the site plan. Specific plea has been taken that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands as property has not been properly depicted in the site plan. Plea has been taken that there is no street between the property of Raj Kumar, Smt.Kamlesh, Summittar and Krishan Ram etc.. Further plea was taken that Raj Kumar son of defendant no.1 purchased 9 marlas from Brij Lal out of khasra no.143 with specific boundaries vide registered sale deed dated 21.5.2007 and house of Hans Raj is shown in yellow colour and house of Krishan Ram is shown in blue colour in the site plan. Civil Revision No.3192 of 2011(O&M) -3- It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that passage in dispute is the only passage for going to the land of petitioner- plaintiff and, however, the same has been demolished by respondents- defendants after filing of the suit and after ex parte injunction order was issued in their favour and hence, petitioner has also filed an application for taking contempt proceedings against respondents-defendants under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code. A perusal of impugned orders passed by learned courts below show that a Local Commissioner was appointed by learned trial Court, who visited the property in dispute and made its report to the effect that there exists no passage in dispute leading to the land of plaintiff. It is not a case of petitioner-plaintiff that there is particular khasra number of the alleged passage leading to khasra nos.147, 150 and 146. As per report of Local Commissioner, there was a boundary wall and no passage, as alleged by petitioner-plaintiff. No objection to the report of Local Commissioner was also filed by petitioner-plaintiff. It has been rightly observed by learned courts below that it is a matter of evidence as to whether any such passage was existing on the date of filing of the suit and as to whether the same was allegedly demolished by respondents-defendants, after filing of the suit. Law is well settled that at the time of granting ad interim injunction order, prima face case, balance of convenience and the fact as to whether an irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner-plaintiff, if ad interim injunction order is not granted to him, is to be seen. Both the Courts below have given sufficient reasons by observing that no prima facie case is made out in favour of petitioner- plaintiff. Admittedly, there is no passage in existence at the spot as per Civil Revision No.3192 of 2011(O&M) -4- report of Local Commissioner. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders 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. 26.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge