The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition regarding the refusal to implead the Sainik Rest House. The court held that the petitioner, who leased the property from the respondent, lacked locus standi, and the order caused no 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.
Civil Revision No.5778 of 2011(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5778 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2011
Raj Kumar Jain
.....Petitioner
v.
Zile Sainik Board, Sainik Rest House, and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioners.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.23078-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Revision No.5778 of 2011
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 9.8.2011 vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for impleading Sainik Rest House, Rohtak, as a party has been declined.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.
Admittedly, the premises in dispute was taken on lease by present petitioner-plaintiff vide lease agreement Annexure P2, which was signed by Secretary Zila Sainik Board as a landlord. The present suit has
-2-
Civil Revision No.5778 of 2011(O&M)
been filed by present petitioner-plaintiff against Zila Sainik Board through its Secretary, as well as against the Secretary in his personal name. He has also impleaded State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and Collector Sub Division, Rohtak, as parties. The suit pertains to the year 2004. He has filed the present application for impleading Sainik Rest House as a party on the plea that the same is owner of the premises in dispute. However, in view of Annexure P2, he is having no locus standi now to say that the property in dispute is not owned by Zila Sainik Board from whom he has taken the same on lease. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the application is not a bona fide one and that the same has been filed just to delay the decision of the pending suit, which is pending since the year 2004.
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
Civil Revision No.5778 of 2011(O&M)
-3-
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.
21.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to implead the Sainik Rest House as a party.
Whether the impugned order suffers from any manifest illegality or grave injustice warranting the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
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
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Raj Kumar Jain
Zile Sainik Board
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
