Civil Revision No.3387 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3387 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2011 Smt.Santosh Chaudhary .....Petitioner v. Smt.Chanderwati .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ........ RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3383-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3387 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 3.3.2010 and 13.11.2010. 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. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction praying that she is owner in possession of land measuring 157 sq.yards marked by letters ABCDEF in the site plan and the boundary shown in sale deed and the site plan in northern side are wrong and incorrect with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in her peaceful possession. Civil Revision No.3387 of 2011(O&M) -2- Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for grant of ad interim injunction order was also filed. Suit as well as the application was contested by petitioner- defendant. The application filed on behalf of respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was decided by learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rohtak, vide order dated 3.3.2010, vide which the parties were directed to maintain status quo till the finalisation of the case with regard to the suit property by observing that parties are closely related and both the parties are residing in the suit property which earlier belong to one Kamla Devi, who had suffered decree of some portion in favour of her children, which was subsequently purchased and re-purchased in between the family members only. Plaintiff is claiming that defendant is interfering in her possession and hence, the impugned order was passed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by present petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by learned first appellate Court. There is dispute as to whether subject matter of sale deed also includes common passage or not. It has been rightly observed by learned courts below that the said dispute cannot be decided at this stage. Sufficient reasons have been given by learned Courts below in deciding the application for ad interim injunction order. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Civil Revision No.3387 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 27.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge