Civil Revision No.2748 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2748 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 27, 2011 Gurmail Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Gurdial Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11035-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2748 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21.2.2011, Annexure P12, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nabha. 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 a suit for declaration was filed by respondents-plaintiffs, namely, Gurdial Singh and Chetan Singh alongwith Mukhtiar Singh through Gurdial Singh being his brother and next friend on the plea that Mukhtiar Singh is of unsound mind. An application was also filed by respondents-plaintiffs under Order 32 Rules 3 and 15 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mukhtiar Singh has not been adjudged as of unsound mind. Application has also not been decided as yet. Mukhtiar Singh was produced by defendant no.4 and, however, as he could not give reply to the questions put to him by the Court, learned trial Court directed that he be Civil Revision No.2748 of 2011(O&M) -2- examined by Medical officer from Civil Hospital, Nabha, with regard to his mental condition, as per Rules, by observing as under:- “Plaintiffs have filed an application under Order 32 Rules 3 and 15 read with Section 151 CPC. Notice of the application was given to the defendant, who filed reply to it and the counsel for the parties are heard. 2. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued that plaintiff Mukhtiar Singh is of unsound mind and is unmarried. He is not adjudged to be of unsound mind till today by any competent court. So enquiry be conducted regarding mental condition of Mukhtiar Singh. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant has argued that plaintiff has filed a false suit only to harass the defendant. Mukhtiar Singh defendant no.3 has purchased himself entire land and he himself sold the same through registered sale deeds. So the question of unsound mind since birth does not arise. He has further contended that plaintiff no.3-Mukhtiar Singh is quite fit and is` not of an unsound mind. So question of conducting any enquiry does not arise at all. 3. Plaintiffs Gurdial Singh, Chetan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh through his next friend Gurdial Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of Village Dittupur Jattan, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, has filed a suit for declaration, joint possession and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff have challenged the sale deeds alleged to be executed by plaintiff no.3 Mukhtiar Singh in favour of defendants as illegal, null and void. Plaintiffs have alleged that plaintiff No.3 Mukhtiar Singh is of unsound mind since his birth and one of the grounds for challenging the sale deed alleged to be executed by plaintiff No.3 in favour of defendants is that at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deeds, plaintiff No.3 was of unsound mind. The perusal of the file shows that no preliminary enquiry regarding the unsound mind of plaintiff No.3 has yet been conducted. Today defendant no.4 Jarnail Singh produced Mukhtiar Singh son of Kartar Singh in the Civil Revision No.2748 of 2011(O&M) -3- Court. He was asked about his name and some other questions were also put to him but he did not give reply and remain silent. Defendant Jarnail Singh, who has brought Mukhtiar Singh alongwith him submitted that he is hard of hearing. No medical record of Mukhtiar Singh is produced on the record. So let Mukhtiar Singh be examined from the Civil Hospital Nabha with regard to his mental condition as per rules. The expenses will be borne by the plaintiffs and report be submitted on or before 24.3.2011.” 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 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 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 that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 27.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge