Civil Revision No.5483 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5483 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2011 Krishan and others .....Petitioners v. Bishan Chand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for Mr.Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioners. ........ RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.21855-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5483 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside judgment dated 8.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, vide which appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff against order dated 4.1.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, dismissing application filed by respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be called as the `Code'), was accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the orders passed by learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that petitioners-defendants have purchased Civil Revision No.5483 of 2011(O&M) -2- only a share in the entire khasra number to the extent of 5 kanal. Hence, they have become owners in the entire land in dispute. Land in dispute is an agricultural land. Though plea has been taken by petitioners-defendants that they are in actual possession of specific portion, however, no prima facie evidence has been adduced in order to prove the specific possession. Moreover the sale deed was executed in favour of present petitioners after obtaining no objection certificate from District Town Planner, Sonepat, and it was one of the condition of the sale that purchaser would use the said land for agriculture purpose only and for changing the land use, necessary permission would have to be obtained from the competent authority and an affidavit in this regard was also filed by present petitioners-defendants through defendant no.1 before District Town Planner, Sonepat. Admittedly, no such permission was sought by them for changing the nature of the land in dispute by raising construction. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, that present petitioners have failed to show prima facie case that they are in exclusive possession of the land in dispute or that they had sought permission to raise construction over the said land. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned first appellate 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 Civil Revision No.5483 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case by learned trial Court on merit. 14.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge