Civil Revision No.4883 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4883 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 Kundan Singh .....Petitioner v. Surinder Pal Singh Sandhu and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. C.M.Nos.19491-92 -CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P8. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.4883 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 2.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, in Civil Suit No.61, dated 7.4.2011, titled as Kundan Singh v. Surinder Pal Singh and others, vide which learned trial Court has dismissed the application moved by petitioner-plaintiff for providing police help for implementation of order dated 4.5.2011. 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. Civil Revision No.4883 of 2011(O&M) -2- Briefly stated, on the application of petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') an order dated 4.5.2011 was passed by learned trial Court restraining respondents-defendants not to raise any kind of further construction over the property in dispute during pendency of the suit. The present application has been filed by petitioner- plaintiff for providing police help for implementation of the said order on the plea that despite injunction order construction is being raised by respondents-defendants. The said request has been declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that respondents-defendants did not stop construction despite injunction order and that they continued with the construction and hence, police help be provided to implement the said order. He has also placed reliance upon Thakur Dass v. Harijan Sudhar Samiti, 1995(1) Civil Court Cases 0410; Gram Panchayat, Daroli Jat v. Smt.Lokesh Devi and others, 1999 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 371 (P&H); and Ram Singh v. Jaggar Singh, 2001(2) Civil Court Cases 0218. Perusal of impugned order passed by learned trial court shows that it was argued on behalf of the present petitioner-plaintiff that construction of marriage palace over the property in dispute had already been completed and that respondents-defendants were distributing cards for its inauguration. Hence, when the construction has already been completed, no case is made out for providing police help for implementing the impugned order. Petitioner-plaintiff is having remedy to file appropriate application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code for initiating action Civil Revision No.4883 of 2011(O&M) -3- against the respondents-defendants, if injunction order passed by learned trial Court has been allegedly violated by respondents-defendants. In Thakur Dass's case (supra) plaitniff was permitted to put only lintel on the walls and however, despite the said order, he was not being allowed to raise the said construction by the opposite party and hence, police help was ordered to be provided to carry out the said order. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of present case. In Ram Singh's case (supra) and Gram Panchayat Daroli Jat's case (supra) as well, despite injunction order restraining other party from interfering in possession of petitioner, there was allegation that the interference was continuing despite protection provided by civil Court and hence, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases, order providing police help was held to be a valid one. However, in the present case, construction has already been completed. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in ordering that the present case is not a fit case to direct police aid as a preventive measure, 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 Civil Revision No.4883 of 2011(O&M) -4- 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. 12.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge