Civil Revision No.2103 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2103 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2011 Inderdeep Singh .....Petitioner v. Subhash Chand and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside judgment dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, vide which appeal filed by respondents-defendants was allowed thereby dismissing the application filed by petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code'). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, present petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing and running the poultry farm on the land in dispute, fully described in the heading the plaint, on the plea that the same would spread harmful and incurable diseases to the residents of the village. Alongwith the suit an Civil Revision No.2103 of 2011(O&M) -2- application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for ad interim injunction order was also filed. Learned trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo regarding further construction of the poultry farm over the suit land till the final decision of the case. However, learned first appellate Court dismissed the application filed by petitioner- plaintiff while accepting the appeal filed by respondents-defendants by observing that the poultry farm has already been set up over the land in question. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that after passing of the impugned order by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, the suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff has been rendered infructuous as the poultry farm has already been set up. Moreover admitted facts are that poultry farm has been set up after obtaining no objection certificate from Punjab Pollution Control Board. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that granting permission by Punjab Pollution Control Board is sufficient to make prima facie case in favour of respondents-defendants and the same would not cause any nuisance to any one. Moreover it is a matter of evidence as to whether running of poultry farm over the land in dispute would be a source of nuisance to any villager including the present petitioner-plaintiff. Hence, when poultry farm has already been set up, 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. Civil Revision No.2103 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case by learned trial Court on merit. 12.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge