Charan Singh vs Balak Ram and Others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. Nos. 29341-42-CII of 2010

Both the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No. 7425 of 2010

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 12.8.2008 and 10.9.2010, passed by both the Courts below vide which application filed by Petitioner-Plaintiff for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Plaintiff and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by both the Court below.

Briefly stated the facts relevant for the decision of the present petition are that plot in dispute was purchased by Defendant No. 1-Balak Ram, who is father of present Petitioner-Plaintiff, vide a registered sale deed dated 5.4.1967. Sale deed is in the name of Defendant No. 1-Balak Ram. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that prima facie the plot in dispute is self acquired property by Balak Ram and at this stage, it cannot be said that the said property is a joint family property of the parties. The alleged assertion of Petitioner-Plaintiff that there was some oral partition has also been denied by Defendant-Respondents and hence it has also been rightly observed that the same is matter of evidence as to whether there was any alleged oral partition.

So far as the alleged execution of Will by Respondent No. 1-Defendant, i.e. father of present Petitioner is concerned, he is still alive and he had revoked the said Will dated 4.6.2007 on 31.7.2007. Ad interim injunction has been denied by the Courts below to Petitioner-Plaintiff by observing that Defendant-Respondent No. 1 is absolute owner of the disputed property and as such no injunction can be granted against him.

In view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below by passing the impugned orders.

Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004(1) RCR 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.