Civil Revision No.4724 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4724 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 5, 2011 Jai Lal and another .....Petitioners v. Farrukhnagar Goshala, Sabha and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 4.5.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Gurgaon, vide which application filed by present petitioners-applicants for impleading them as a party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for decree for declaration to the effect that sale deed bearing No.408 dated 3.5.2007 and subsequent mutation sanctioned on its basis in favour of defendant is illegal, null and void. Present petitioners-applicants are not party to the said sale deed. Even plea of petitioners-applicants is that the sale deed is not a valid Civil Revision No.4724 of 2011(O&M) -2- document. Law is well settled that plaintiff is dominus litis. He has not claimed any relief against present petitioners-applicants. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that decree, if any, passed in this case will not affect the alleged rights of ownership and possession of the applicants over the suit property. 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 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. 5.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge