This court dismissed a revision petition seeking quashing of an additional district judge's order that set aside an interim injunction application. The court held no grave injustice was occasioned to warrant interference.
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.6458 of 2011(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.6458 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 1, 2011
Piara Singh and others
.....Petitioners
v.
Kashmir Singh and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.A.K.Walia, Advocate for the petitioners.
......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.25491-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.No.25492-CII of 2011
Requests for placing on record Annexures P-1 to P-9.
The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Civil Revision No.6458 of 2011
Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 1.6.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which order passed by learned trial Court dated 11.8.2010 on an application filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the `Code'), was set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the orders passed by learned
Civil Revision No.6458 of 2011(O&M)
-2-
Courts below.
Briefly stated, present petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from constructing any pacca road or passage through the land bearing khasra No.165(4-12) situated within revenue estate of Village Kharajpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, on the plea that they are co-owners in possession of the suit land and defendants are having no concern. On the same facts, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was also filed.
On notice being issued, respondents-defendants filed written statement as well as reply to the application contesting the same, inter alia, on the ground that petitiones-plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and that rather they have carved out different plots and sold the same to different persons and in all the sale deeds passage has been shown. Hence, it is contended that land in dispute is no more agricultural land and plaintiffs are not in exclusive possession of the same.
Application filed by petitioners-plaintiffs was allowed by learned trial Court by taking reliance upon the entry in the revenue record, i.e., jamabandi for the year 2004-2005.
Appeal filed by respondents-defendants against the said order was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Partiala, and the application for ad interim injunction order was dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.6.2011, Annexure P1.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs that learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, has wrongly observed that the part of the property in dispute was purchased by Judge Singh son of Kashmir Singh from one of the plaintiffs-Swaran Singh,
Civil Revision No.6458 of 2011(O&M) -3-
as Swaran Singh was not a plaintiff. However, there seems to be a typographical mistake in the order. However, admitted facts are that sale deed was executed in favour of Judge Singh son of Kashmir Singhrespondent-defendant by Swaran Singh, who is claiming right in the property through Piara Singh, one of the plaintiffs. It has been further contended that sale deed in favour of Swaran Singh son of defendant has not been placed on record. However, there is specific plea on the part of respondents-defendants that only part of property bearing khasra number in dispute, i.e., 165, which was purchased by Swaran Singh from Piara Singh, one of the plaintiffs, was purchased. Hence, at this stage, the said plea cannot be discarded.
Perusal of Annexure P8 shows that passage has been shown towards north and east side on part of property forming part of khasra no.165, which was sold by Piara Singh, one of the plaintiffs to Swaran Singh son of the defendant. Moreover petitioners-plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. They have not disclosed the fact that khasra No.165 was already carved out in different plots and the same were sold to different persons. There is no dispute that sale deeds were executed by plaintiffs Piara Singh, Shingara Singh, Surmukh Singh, and Mewa Singh to different persons by carving out khasra No.165 into different plots. In all the sale deeds, road/passage has been shown by all the plaintiffs. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge that plaintiffs have sold portion of their land by providing roads to different vendees including son of respondent-defendant, who is claiming through Swaran Singh, who is claiming through Piara Singh, one of the plaintiffs.
Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said
-4-
Civil Revision No.6458 of 2011(O&M)
that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, 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.”
Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case by learned trial Court on merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
1.11.2011 meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised to quash an order setting aside an injunction application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersReferred¶38
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
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Piara Singh and others
Kashmir Singh
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
