Civil Revision No.2363 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2363 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 25, 2011 Rachpal Singh and others .....Petitioners v. Swaranjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9593-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2363 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') for setting aside order dated 3.3.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jagraon, vide which application filed by petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for impleading them as parties in the suit has been 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against respondents no.2 to 4 restraining them from installing the polls and putting high tension wires over the land of respondent no.1-plaintiff situated at Sherpur Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. During pendency of the suit, the present application was filed Civil Revision No.2363 of 2011(O&M) -2- by present petitioners for impleading them as parties on the ground that electricity connection is to be granted to them as they had constructed their houses in their fields and for that purpose electricity polls are to be installed and high tension wires have to be passed from the fields of respondent no.1-plaintiff. The said application was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing as under:- “File taken up today as 2.3.2011 was declared as public holiday. Heard on application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the applicant as defendant regarding which it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff is the master of his own suit. Moreover, if the applicant has any grudge against the plaintiff or any other person then he can file suit against them, but he cannot be impleaded as party in the present suit. Therefore, in these circumstances, the application stands declined. Now for evidence of the plaintiff, to come up on 17.5.2011.” It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that respondent-plaintiff is dominus litus, i.e., he is master of his case. He has not claimed relief against present petitioners and the only dispute is as to whether respondents no.2 to 4-defendants are having right to erect the electricity polls and pass electricity wires through the fields of respondent no.1-plaintiff for providing connection to petitioners-applicants or as to whether some other route is to be followed by respondents-defendants for providing electricity to the petitioners. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that petitioners are necessary parties to the present suit and 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 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it Civil Revision No.2363 of 2011(O&M) -3- is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 25.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge