In a civil revision, the single judge dismissed the petition challenging an order dismissing an ad interim injunction in a partition suit. The court held that Article 226 jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or correction of inference errors absent manifest illegality or grave injustice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Civil Revision No.5362 of 2011(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5362 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011
Kulwinder Kaur
.....Petitioner
v.
Savinder Kaur and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.S.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 3.6.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, allowing appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff against order dated 15.6.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ferozepur, vide which application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by respondent-plaintiff for grant of ad interim injunction order was dismissed.
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.
Briefly stated, parties are closely related. They are daughters of Dalip Singh-deceased. They are claiming through Dalip Singh. Dalip Singh was having one half share in the land in dispute, duly described in
-2-
Civil Revision No.5362 of 2011(O&M)
the plaint. There are also other co-sharers in the entire land. Respondentplaintiff has taken the plea that the land in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Dalip Singh as the same was inherited by him, whereas petitioner has taken the plea that the same was self acquired property of Dalip Singh. At t his stage, prima facie there is no material to show that it was self acquired property of Dalip Singh. Learned Additional District Judge, Ferzoepur, at this stage, only directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation of the suit property.
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 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.”
Civil Revision No.5362 of 2011(O&M)
-3-
Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
5.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference under Article 226 is warranted to correct errors in granting or dismissing an ad interim injunction in a partition dispute.
Whether the supervisory jurisdiction permits re-appreciation of evidence or correction of errors in drawing inferences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersApplied¶21
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675: AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulwinder Kaur
Savinder Kaur
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
