IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4759 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 8, 2011. Karam Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Paramjit Kaur ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, 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 impugned order dated 24.02.2011, Annexure P4 passed by learned trial Court vide which application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by petitioner-plaintiff for impleading Jatinder Singh as a party in the suit, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.4759 of 2011 Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.03.2003 allegedly executed in favour of petitioner- plaintiff by respondent-defendant as guardian of minor –Jatinder Singh was filed. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant and preliminary objection was taken that suit has not been filed against proper party as Jatinder Singh is owner of the property in dispute whereas without impleading Jatinder Singh suit has been filed against her mother, Paramjit Kaur. Objection was also taken that the present application for impleading Jatinder Singh as proper and necessary party in suit has not been filed at appropriate stage by petitioner- plaintiff. Respondent-defendant had filed written statement on 26.02.2008 taking preliminary objection that Jatinder Singh was not impleaded as a necessary party. Even then the present application has been filed on 11.05.2010 on the plea that petitioner has now come to know that Jatinder Singh has attained the age of majority and hence, become necessary party, which was declined by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Jatinder Singh is a necessary party to be impleaded and that earlier he could not be impleaded as a party as it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner that he had attained the age of majority. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that later Paramjit Kaur also got permission to sell the land in dispute on behalf of minor from the competent court. However, admitted facts are that, Jatinder Singh though minor at the time of execution of agreement to sell, was owner of the property in dispute. The agreement so executed by his mother is on his behalf only as 2 CR No.4759 of 2011 guardian. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that the suit has not been filed against the proper person. Suit should have been filed against Jatinder Singh through his mother. However, suit was filed against Paramjit Kaur and not against Jatinder Singh. Further, preliminary objection was taken by the respondent-defendant that Jatinder Singh is a necessary party in the suit. Despite that he was not impleaded as a party. The alleged agreement to sell is dated 17.03.2003 and the present application for impleading Jatinder Singh as a party has been filed on 11.05.2011. Jatinder Singh attained the age of majority on 10.07.2005 hence, the suit for specific performance of agreement dated 17.03.2003 against Jatinder Singh has also become time barred. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, 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.” 3 CR No.4759 of 2011 Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 8, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4