Civil Revision No.8490 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8490 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 23, 2011 Shri Kishan Dhawan .....Petitioner v. Neelam and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.32920-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.8490 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.3.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar, vide which application 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') in civil suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs no.1 to 6 against present petitioner and respondents no.7 and 8 was allowed and defendants including the present petitioner were restrained from transferring possession/subletting the shop in dispute to respondents-defendants no.2 and 3 and further to set aside order dated 5.10.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed against order dated 13.3.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by Civil Revision No.8490 of 2010(O&M) -2- learned courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondents-plaintiffs are owners of property in dispute and that the same was taken on rent by present petitioner-defendant no.1 and a rent note was also executed. There is a recital in the rent note that the shop would not be sublet by the tenant. However, plea has been taken that petitioner- defendant no.1 intends to sublet the same and the present suit was filed alongwith an application for ad interim injunction order. In the written statement, it has been admitted by petitioner-defendant no.1 that he was inducted as tenant in the shop in dispute by husband of the plaintiff, namely, Sai Dass. Plea has also been taken that he has not transferred the possession of the shop in dispute to defendants no.2 and 3. Learned trial Court allowed the application filed by respondents-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code and petitioner-defendant no.1 has been restrained from transferring/subletting the possession of the shop in dispute to defendants no.2 and 3 during pendency of the suit. Appeal filed against the said order has also been dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not so far sublet the premises in dispute to defendants no.2 and 3 and that in case he would sublet the same to defendants no.2 and 3, respondents-plaintiffs would be having a right to seek his ejectment from the shop in dispute and hence, it is contended that no prima facie case is made out in favour of respondents-plaintiffs, balance of convenience also does not lie in their favour and that no irreparable loss would be caused to them, if ad interim injunction order is not granted. Civil Revision No.8490 of 2010(O&M) -3- However, merely on the ground that respondents-plaintiffs would be having right to seek ejectment of petitioner from the premises in dispute if he sublets the same to defendants no.2 and 3, it cannot be said that they are having no right to seek injunction against him restraining him from subletting the same to defendants no.2 and 3, if they are having reasonable apprehension of the same. Moreover, when it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not going to sublet the premises in dispute to defendants no.2 and 3, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to petitioner by passing impugned orders by courts below, and hence, no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in exercising the discretion in granting ad interim injunction order in favour of respondents-plaintiffs and against the present petitioner-defendant no.1 and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law is well settled 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 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. 23.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.8490 of 2010(O&M) -4-