Civil Revision No.2503 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2503 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2011 Rajni Mittal and another .....Petitioners v. Amarjeet Singh Chawla and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside order dated 31.3.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad, vide which application filed by present petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as defendants in the suit has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 suit for recovery of `91,22,500/- was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against respondent no.2 -defendant on the brief allegations that respondent no.2-defendant had agreed to sell the property in dispute for a total sale consideration of `2,20,50,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 7.10.2008 and had also received earnest money of `60,50,000/- from respondent no.1- plaintiff, which included the full and final payment of shop No.B-111, Civil Revision No.2503 of 2011 (O&M) -2- which was agreed to be sold for `16,00,000/-, whereas `44,50,000/- were given as earnest money towards House No.344, Sector 9, Faridabad. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.1.2009. Respondent no.1-plaintiff had already agreed to perform his part of the contract, however, respondent no.2-defendant did not appear before the Sub Registrar, Ballabgarh, on 15.1.2009, i.e., the stipulated date for the execution of the sale deed and did not execute the same. A notice was also issued by respondent no.1-plaintiff to defendant calling upon him to do the needful. However, on failure of respondent no.2-defendant to perform his part of the contract, respondent no.1-plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of `91,22,5000/- by invoking clause No.6 of the agreement. Defendant -vendor admitted the execution of agreement to sell and receipt of earnest money, however, plea has been taken that respondent no.1-plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of the contract as he was not having the balance sale consideration and that due to this conduct of plaintiff, he has suffered financial loss of `20 lacs, as he also entered into an agreement to purchase some other property with one Gautam Verma and had paid him `20 lacs as earnest money and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid by him on or before 30.3.2009. Hence, plea has been taken that as defendant could not meet with his commitment with Gautam Verma, due to action of plaintiff, `20 lacs paid by him to Gautam Verma stood forfeited. During the pendency of the suit, an application for grant of ad interim injunction order was also filed on behalf of the respondent no.1- plaintiff, which was decided by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faridabad, vide order dated 20.3.2010. Respondent no.1-plaintiff filed Civil Civil Revision No.2503 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Revision no.3697 of 2010 against the said order before this Court, in which this Court passed the order staying further alienation of the property in question. Thereafter, the present application was filed by present petitioners-applicants that they had purchased the property in dispute from respondent no.2-defendant vide sale deed dated 12.5.2010, and as they were not having notice of pendency of present suit, hence they are bona fide purchasers for consideration. It has also been pleaded that final transfer permission is not being granted by HUDA authorities in favour of petitioners-applicants qua the suit property in view of the said order issued by this Court. The said application was contested by non-applicants and the same was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order against which the present revision petition has been filed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that sale deed in favour of petitioners is dated 12.5.2010, whereas injunction order was issued by this Court on 27.5.2010. It is further contended that in view of the injunction order issued by this Court, final transfer permission is not being granted by HUDA authorities and hence, it is contended that petitioners are necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit and in the pending revision petition. It has been observed by learned trial Court that even in the sale deed dated 12.5.2010, allegedly executed in favour of present petitioners by respondent no.2-defendant during pendency of this suit, it has been specifically mentioned that regarding property in dispute, a suit for recovery is already pending between him and respondent no.1- plaintiff in Faridabad Civil Revision No.2503 of 2011 (O&M) -4- and hence, in view of this fact, it cannot be said that the fact regarding pendency of the present suit was not in the knowledge of the present petitioners-applicants, when they agreed to purchase the property in dispute from respondent no.2-defendant in spite of the fact that there was prior agreement in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff and in spite of the fact that earnest money was received by the vendor from the plaintiff. It has also been observed that agreement to sell between plaintiff and contesting respondent no.2-defendant was executed for sale consideration of `2,20,50,000/-, whereas present applicants purchased the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 12.5.2010 for a sale consideration of `65 lacs only. Hence, it has been rightly observed that property in dispute has been purchased by present petitioners-applicants from respondent no.2-defendant knowing fully well that there was prior lien of plaintiff for recovery of the amount paid by him to respondent no.2-defendant. Hence, in view of these facts, merely, on the ground that HUDA authorities are not issuing final transfer permission regarding property in dispute in favour of petitioners-applicants, it cannot be said that petitioners-applicants are necessary parties for adjudication of the controversy between the parties in this case. Petitioners-applicants have stepped into the shoes of their vendor. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that 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 Civil Revision No.2503 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 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. 27.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge