Civil Revision No.1415 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1415 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 28, 2011 Jarnail Singh .....Petitioner v. Sukhpal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vikas Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5689-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1415 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 7.2.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mansa, vide which the application filed by respondent no.3 for production of sale deed no.5112 dated 14.5.2007 has been allowed. 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. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 1k 16 marlas, duly described in the heading of the plaint and that the sale-deed executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 in respect of the land measuring 1k 0.49 marla is illegal and wrong and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, as defendant no.3 could not have sold the land in excess of his share. Respondent-defendants appeared and filed an application for Civil Revision No.1415 of 2011(O&M) -2- direction to present petitioner-plaintiff for production of sale-deed No.5112 dated 14.5.2007 executed by present petitioner-plaintiff in favour of his son, which was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order by observing as under:- “The applicant/defendant no.3 has through this application sought the direction that the respondent/plaintiff be directed to produce the sale deed no.5112 dated 14.5.2007 in the Court. The applicant/defendant no.3 has claimed that the sale deed is in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff as the vendee to whom the land was sold by the respondent/plaintiff is the son of respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff has no where denied that the sale deed is not in his possession rather he has averred that the sale deed cannot be ordered to be produced in the court as the property in the sale deed has no connection with the suit land. Now as the jamabandi for the year 2003-04 placed on record the land comprised in Mustil and Killa no.1141/1 (11-0) and 1142/1 (1-16) belongs to Khewat No.1382/1. The land measuring 12-16 have been purchased by Mohinder Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Hardev Singh and Jarnail Singh jointly. As per the applicant/defendant no.3 the plaintiff sold the specific portion out of the land bearing the Khasra no.1141 /1 (11-0). The applicant/defendant no.3 has claimed that he wants to put the fact regarding the sale of specific portion to the plaintiff as the plaintiff has challenged the sale made by him from the Khasra No.1142/1 (1-16). The plea of the plaintiff that the land comprised in the Khasra no.1141/1(11-0) is not the part of the joint khewat is not acceptable as from the jamabandi it is clear that both killa numbers are in the joint khewat. Thus, the defendant no.3 has full right to put its contents to the plaintiff and his witness. The sale deed is in the possession of the son of the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff is directed to produce the sale seed no.5112 dated 14.5.2007 in the Court. Consequently, the application of the applicant/defendant no.3 is allowed. Civil Revision No.1415 of 2011(O&M) -3- Now to come up on 23.2.2011. Plaintiff is directed to produce the sale deed no.5112 dated 14.5.2007 in the Court on the next date. PWs be also produced on next date for cross-examination.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that sale-deed which is sought to be produced is not relevant for the decision of present controversy and moreover, the same is in possession of his son and hence he cannot be compelled to produce the same. However, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court in the impugned order that no such plea was taken by the present petitioner in his reply to the application that the sale-deed is not in his possession. Rather, the application was opposed only on the ground that the sale-deed has no connection with the present controversy. Further, as per jamabandi, the entire land was joint, which was purchased by present petitioner- plaintiff alongwith his brothers jointly. There are specific allegations made by defendant no.3 that petitioner-plaintiff sold specific portion of the said land in favour of his son. Hence, as present petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the sale made by defendant no.3, the said sale-deed is relevant for the decision of present controversy. Hence, 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 and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law is well settled 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 28.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge