IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7215 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 28, 2011. Amarjit Kaur and others. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Jaswinder Kaur and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.Shukla, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 06.02.2010, Annexure P13 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala dismissing appeal filed by present petitioners-plaintiffs against order dated 02.09.2009, Annexure P12 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Patiala vide which application filed by present petitioners- CR No.7215 of 2010 plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for ad- interim injunction order, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including both the orders passed by learned courts below. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that, present petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for decree for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land measuring one Bigha fully detailed and described in the heading of the plaint. Plea has been taken that earlier Pritam Singh father of present petitioners was owner in possession of the land in dispute and after his death they came in possession of the same. On these facts, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants filed written statement as well as reply to the application denying that Pritam Singh was owner of the property in dispute. Rather plea has been taken that respondents-defendants have purchased the property in dispute from its earlier owner and that they are residing in the same by constructing the house and an electric meter was also installed by respondent-defendant no.1. It is also contended that even in the revenue record possession of respondents- defendants have been mentioned. Learned trial Court did not find prima facie case in favour of present petitioners-plaintiffs and hence, the application for ad-interim injunction order was dismissed. The appeal filed by petitioners-plaintiffs 2 CR No.7215 of 2010 against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs that vendor of respondent-defendant no.1 was owner of only 4 Biswa of land and however, he had sold 6 Biswa to respondent-defendant. It is also contended that respondent-defendant is not in possession of the property in dispute. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants that though the present suit has been filed regarding entire one Bigha of land and however, respondents-defendants are in possession of 250 square yards, which is the land in dispute and that the same was purchased by respondent-defendant no.1 vide registered sale deed from its previous owner and mutation was also sanctioned in her favour. It is further contended that they are residing in the said house and electric connection was also installed. Law is well settled that at this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioners-plaintiffs if ad-interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. However, in the present case, there is no document to show prima facie that present petitioners-plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in dispute. Perusal of entries made in the Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 shows that Jaswinder Kaur, respondent-defendant no.1 is in possession of land bearing Khasra number in dispute. The similar entry is also made in the Khasra Girdawari. Mutation is also in favour of respondent-defendant no.1. Respondent-defendant no.2 is husband of respondent-defendant no.1. 3 CR No.7215 of 2010 In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders or 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. However, it is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by the trial Court. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 28, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 4