Civil Revision No.7332 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7332 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Jogender .....Petitioner v. Tulsi Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.28383-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.7332 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 14.11.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri, vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for impleading Tehsildar Revenue Sale, Bhiwani and Tehsildar Revenue Sale, Dadri, as parties to the present suit, was declined. 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 only point contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application was filed by petitioner-plaintiff to implead Tehsildar Revenue Sale, Bhiwani and Tehsildar Revenue Sales, Dadri, as parties to Civil Revision No.7332 of 2011(O&M) -2- the suit, as objection was taken by respondents-defendants in the written statement that they are necessary parties and, however, application was declined by learned trial Court, merely, on the ground that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') was issued, whereas an application was filed seeking exemption to give notice under Section 80 of the Code and that State of Haryana through Collector and Tehsildar Sales Custodian, Bhiwani, were already parties. Hence, in view of these facts when State of Haryana through Collector and Tehsildar Sales Custodian, Bhiwani, are already parties, it cannot be said that Tehsildar Revenue Sales, Dadri, and Tehsildar Revenue Sales, Bhiwani, who simply passed some orders regarding sanctioning of mutations in favour of respondent no.1-defendant and has not sanctioned mutation in favour of petitioner, are necessary parties for the decision of present suit. Hence, 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 Civil Revision No.7332 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 29.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge