Civil Revision No.5484 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5484 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: May 20, 2011 Sukhbir Singh .....Petitioner v. Balwinder Singh and others .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.S.D.Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 31.8.2009, Annexure P7, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 12.6.2007, Annexure P5, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar, vide which application filed by petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007 in civil Suit No.601 of 2006 passed against the petitioner and others was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by Civil Revision No.5484 of 2009(O&M) -2- learned Courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that Civil Suit No.601 of 2006 titled as Balwinder Singh v. Surinder Kaur and others was decided by the then learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar, vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.2.2007 in favour of Balwinder Singh, respondent no.1-plaintiff. Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the said judgment and decree. During pendency of the said application, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed by petitioner seeking injunction against respondent-plaintiff from alienating the suit property, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.6.2007 by observing that property in question had already been alienated and defendant no.1 had already purchased the property from the plaintiff and the General Power of Attorney, on the basis of which the property was transferred to defendant no.1 on 7.2.1996, was already cancelled by the plaintiff on 22.4.1998 and hence, it was observed that since suit property had already been sold vide registered sale deed, so no order could be passed restraining further alienation. It was further observed that principle of lis pendence would also be applicable for any subsequent sale deed of the suit property. Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court by observing that application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code can be filed in a pending suit, whereas in the present case, application of petitioner-appellant for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree is pending and the said application cannot be treated as a suit. Civil Revision No.5484 of 2009(O&M) -3- Hence, both the Courts below have given sufficient reasons for dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code by petitioner. Application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code is still pending. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code can be filed during pendency of the suit by plaintiff for ad interim injunction order and that defendant is having no right to file the said application during pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. Otherwise as well only injunction sought is that of alienation and however, any alienation during pendency of legal proceedings is hit by doctrine of lis pendence. 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 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 Civil Revision No.5484 of 2009(O&M) -4- 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. 20.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge