Civil Revision No.5629 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5629 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Harprabhpal Singh .....Petitioner v. The Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Arnav Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.22513-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5629 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.8.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which application filed by present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the `Code') for impleading him as a party in the suit has been allowed and, however, it was directed that present petitioner-applicant would not be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses of co-defendant or to produce his own witnesses as the case already attained finality and that he would be bound by the acts of his predecessor and would be having only right to address the arguments. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by Civil Revision No.5629 of 2011(O&M) -2- learned trial Court. Briefly stated, Union of India-respondent no.1 filed this interpleader suit on the brief allegations that the property in dispute was taken on rent by Union of India from Smt.Pushpawati Nayyer, who expired on 14.10.1987. Respondent no.2-defendant no.1 claimed right to receive rent from respondent-plaintiff on the basis of a Will, allegedly executed in his favour by Smt.Pushpawati Nayyer, whereas respondents-defendants no.2 to 12 claimed right in the property as natural heirs of Smt.Pushpawati Nayyer and they also filed a petition for ejectment against respondent no.1- plaintiff. Hence, the present interpleader suit under Section 35 of the Code was filed by respondent-Union of India for adjudication on the point as to who among the defendants is entitled to receive rent from respondent- plaintiff. Present petitioner-applicant is claiming rights in part of the property in dispute by way of purchase from respondent no.2-defendant no.1, Shri T.R.Bedi. As per case of present petitioner, part of the property in dispute was purchased by one Sukhminder Singh s/o Dalip Singh vide sale deed dated 30.11.1999. Sukhminder Singh subsequently sold the same to present petitioner vide sale deed dated 8.8.2005 and hence being subsequent vendee, he is a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. The application was allowed by learned trial Court and, however, applicant was restrained from leading any other evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses of co-defendant on the plea that trial has already been concluded and, however, he was permitted to address arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant that no evidence was adduced by his vendor in this case and that rather he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 21.9.2007 and hence, it is Civil Revision No.5629 of 2011(O&M) -3- contended that he is having right to cross-examine the witnesses of co- defendant and also having right to adduce evidence as he has stepped into the shoes of his vendor, who has purchased the part of the property from respondent-defendant no.1-Shri T.R.Bedi. However, plea cannot be accepted. In this case respondent- defendant no.1 appeared and filed written statement. He was proceeded ex parte when the case was at the stage of evidence of defendants. Though petitioner was allowed to be impleaded as a party by learned trial Court as respondent-defendant no.1, through whom he is claiming right to become a party, was proceeded ex parte and however, as the case was at the final stage, he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of other set of defendants, already examined and to lead any other evidence and he was also held bound by the acts of his predecessor. 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 jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or Civil Revision No.5629 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. 13.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge