Civil Revision No.5327 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5327 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 2, 2011 Krishan .....Petitioner v. Raj Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Y.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.21326-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5327 of 2011 Petitioner-plaintiff has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside order dated 17.8.2011, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which appeal filed by respondents-defendants against order dated 4.3.2010, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Guhla, vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff was disposed of with direction to maintain status quo, was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the orders passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, present petitioner-plaintiff no.1 and other respondents no.4 to 6-plaintiffs are sons of Kartara Singh and respondent Civil Revision No.5327 of 2011(O&M) -2- no.7-plaintiff is widow of Kartara Singh. Entire property was initially owned by Kartara Singh. Ajmer Singh, one of the sons of Kartara Singh became owner of the land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas being 104/312 share of total land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas comprising of khewat No.1451, Khatoni No.1755 and 1756 situated within the revenue estate of village Cheeka, Tehsil Guhla on the basis of judgment and decree dated 3.2.1996 in civil Suit No.962 of 1995 titled as Ajmer Singh v. Kartara. On the basis of said judgment and decree, mutation No.6883 was sanctioned in favour of Ajmer Singh on 31.5.1996. Thereafter he executed two registered sale deeds dated 23.12.1998, vide which land measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas was sold in favour of Rajesh Kumar and Raj Kumar sons of Mange Ram and the mutations were also sanctioned in their favour and since then respondents no.1 and 2-defendants have been continuing in possession of the same as owners. It has been brought on record that out of the sale consideration, `1,50,000/- were given to present petitioner-plaintiff Krishan. It has also been mentioned that amount of ` 1,00,000 and `1,50,000/- were deposited in the fixed deposit receipts on the same day, i.e., 23.12.1998 in the names of Ajmer Singh and present petitioner-Krishan. Copies of the fixed deposit receipts in the sum of `1,00,000/- and `1,50,000/- in the names of Ajmer Singh respondent and present petitioner-plaintiff Krishan have been placed on record. It has been so mentioned in the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. Now the present petitioner has challenged the said decree and subsequent sale deeds, which were executed in favour of contesting respondents no.1 and 2– defendants in the year 1998. It has been observed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, while allowing the appeal filed by the contesting respondents no.1 and 2- Civil Revision No.5327 of 2011(O&M) -3- defendants that they have been continuing in possession over the land in dispute for the last ten years by virtue of sale deeds and mutation was also sanctioned in their favour and they are in the process of raising construction as is clear from the photographs and they intend to complete the further constructions. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned 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 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 Civil Revision No.5327 of 2011(O&M) -4- construed to have any bearing on the decision of this case on merit by learned trial Court. 2.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge