The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a lower court order impleading a legal representative in a property suit. The revision was rejected as the trial court acted correctly and no grave injustice occurred.
The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
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.
Civil Revision No.5619 of 2011(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5619 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011
Jaspal Kaur and others
.....Petitioners
v.
Ravinder Kaur and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.MPS Mann, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.22485-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Revision No.5619 of 2011
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ellanabad, vide which application filed by Damadeep Singh for impleading him as legal representative of respondent-plaintiff -Ravinder Kaur (now deceased) was allowed.
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 Ravinder Kaur-plaintiff filed a suit against present petitioners for declaration that she is owner in possession of the property in dispute.
-2-
Civil Revision No.5619 of 2011(O&M)
During pendency of the suit, she expired. Application was filed by one Damandeep Singh son of Paramjit Singh for impleading him as legal representative of Ravinder Kaur on the basis of a Will, allegedly executed in his favour by Ravinder Kaur. No other person came forward to be impleaded as legal representative of deceased Ravinder Kaur. The application has been contested by the present petitioners-defendants. However, learned trial Court allowed the application by rightly observing that validity of Will is not to be decided in these proceedings. Hence he has been rightly impleaded as legal representative of Ravinder Kaur on the basis of a Will to pursue the present litigation on behalf of the deceasedplaintiff.
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, 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
Civil Revision No.5619 of 2011(O&M)
-3-
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.
15.9.2011 meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under supervisory jurisdiction when the trial court did not decide the validity of a will.
Whether the order allowing impleadment of a legal representative on the basis of a will involves illegality or grave injustice.
Whether the revision petition is maintainable given settled law that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used for re-appreciation of evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersReferred¶24
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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaspal Kaur and others
Ravinder Kaur and another
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
