Civil Revision No.3625 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3625 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 30, 2011 Munsha Singh .....Petitioner v. Amar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14324-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3625 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 27.4.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurkushetra, vide which application filed by petitioner-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a party has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned appellate Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-applicant was owner of land in dispute. It was sold by him to respondent no.1-plaintiff. A sale deed was also executed by present petitioner in favour of contesting respondents no.2 to 5-defendants vide sale Civil Revision No.3625 of 2011(O&M) -2- deed dated 6.6.1970. Plea was taken by respondents no.2 to 5-defendants that the land in dispute was sold to them by present applicant-petitioner. Hence, present suit was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff for permanent injunction regarding half share of property in dispute comprising in khasra no.23/7 (0-2) and 23/8 (0-2) situated at Village Kaulapur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshtra. Respondents no.2 to 5-defendants filed counter-claim seeking decree for declaration that they be declared owners in possession of the property in dispute. Later on respondent no.1-plaintiff made a statement for withdrawing the suit and, however, as there was counter-claim filed by respondents no.2 to 5-defendants, the suit proceeded and their counter-claim was accepted by learned trial Court and a decree was passed in their favour. Respondent no.1-plaintiff filed appeal against the said judgment and decree, which is still pending. During pendency of the appeal, the present application has been filed by petitioner-applicant for impleading him as a party, which was dismissed by learned appellate Court. Plea taken by petitioner-applicant is that he did not file an application before learned trial Court for impleading him as a party as he was not aware of the pendency of the suit. However, the plea was rightly rejected by learned appellate Court as admittedly petitioner-applicant appeared as a witness in this case as DW-2. Moreover, when petitioner has already sold the land in dispute and when he left with no interest in the land in dispute and when no claim has been made against him, either by respondent no.1-plaintiff or by respondents no.2 to 5-defendants by way of counter-claim, it cannot be said that he is a necessary party to be impleaded in the proceedings. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any Civil Revision No.3625 of 2011(O&M) -3- illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned appellate 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, 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. 30.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge