Civil Revision No.3266 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3266 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 18, 2011 Ajay Dang .....Petitioner v. Smt.Uma Bhatia and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Amit Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.12977-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3266 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 22.3.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad, vide which the application filed by petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for impleading him as party in the suit filed by respondents no.1 and 2 against respondents no.3 to 5 has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration was filed by respondents no.1 and 2-plaintiffs to Civil Revision No.3266 of 2011(O&M) -2- the effect that respondents no.3 and 4, i.e., defendants no.1 and 2 without any right and authority applied for regularization of illegal sub Division into two parts of property in dispute, i.e., Plot No.C-1, Nehru Ground, NIT, Faridabad, and for grant of sanction of building plan in respect of plot in question and that on their application, regularization was allowed by defendant no.3 is illegal and even sanction of building plan by defendant no.3 is also illegal as the same has been obtained by defendant no.1 and 2 on the basis of General Power of Attorney, dated 29.5.2004, which was already cancelled, vide cancellation deed dated 6.12.2006. Hence, in view of these facts, the dispute is between respondents no.1 and 2, i.e. the plaintiffs and respondents no.3 to 5, i.e., the defendants, in the present suit. Respondents no.1 and 2-plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against the present petitioner. Law is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litis. He cannot be compelled to implead a person as a party against whom he does not seek any relief. Petitioner-applicant is to show that he is a necessary party for adjudication of the dispute between respondents-plaintiffs and respondents- defendants, against whom the suit has been filed. He is claiming that agreement was executed in his favour regarding the property in dispute by respondents-plaintiffs and regarding the same he has also filed a civil suit impleading respondents-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants of the suit as parties. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that present petitioner is a necessary party to be impleaded in the present suit. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material Civil Revision No.3266 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 18.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge