Civil Revision No.4034 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4034 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 6, 2011 Harmesh Kaur .....Petitioner v. Avtar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.15963-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4034 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') for setting aside order dated 27.5.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which order dated 8.11.2010 for maintaining status quo regarding property in dispute passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura, in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code in civil suit by petitioner-plaintiff was set aside and the application was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below. Civil Revision No.4034 of 2011(O&M) -2- Admitted facts are that petitioner-plaintiff is daughter of respondents no.1 and 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that respondent no.1 is having no son and he is having two daughters only, i.e., present petitioner, who is married and another daughter, who is also married. The property in dispute is residential house situated within the abadi of the village. Though in the plaint plea taken by the petitioner was that the site on which house has been constructed was purchased by her and, however, in the replication the said stand was changed and plea was taken that the land on which the house is constructed is owned by respondent no.1-defendant no.1-Avtar Singh, i.e., father of present petitioner. Though plea was taken that house was constructed by petitioner-plaintiff from the funds sent to her by her husband, who is living abroad, however, it has been observed by learned Courts below that prima facie no such evidence was produced on the record to show that the house was constructed by petitioner-plaintiff from the funds sent by her husband from abroad. Hence, petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. This is unfortunate case in which daughter of respondents no.1 and 2 has filed suit against them, involving them in litigation and intends to oust them from their own residential house. Learned first appellate Court has taken into consideration all these aspects and came to the conclusion that petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled for discretionary relief of injunction. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned first appellate Court in dismissing the application filed by petitioner-plaintiff Civil Revision No.4034 of 2011(O&M) -3- under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code 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. 6.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge