Kumari Dazy Kaur v. S. Manjit Singh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 400 of 2016 • Kumari Dazy Kaur D/o Sarvajit Singh, Aged About 47 Years R/o Sardar Sarvajit Singh, G. E. Road, Near Rajendra Park, Durg, P. S. & Tahsil And District Durg, (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. S. Manjit Singh S/o Kabul Singh, Dhamdha Road, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh)

2. S. Dhanjit Singh Johal, S/o Kabul Singh, Barkeli, California, U. S. A.

3. Ravindra Kaur, W/o S. Sarvajit Singh Dulai, R/o 5, Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh).

4. S. Sukhvinderjit Singh Johal, S/o Kabul Singh, R/o Station Road, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

5. Rajvinder Kaur, D/o Late Surinder Jit Singh Johal, R/o Dhamdha Road, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh).

6. Ravinder Kaur, D/o Late Surinder Jit Singh Johal, R/o Dhamadha Road, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh).

7. Ku. Baby Kaur, D/o Late Surinder Jit Singh Johal, R/o Dhamadha Road, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh).

8. Ku. Hani Kaur, D/o Late Surinder Jit Singh Johal R/o Dhamadha Road, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh).

9. Ku. Chhoti Kaur, D/o Late Surinder Jit Singh Johal, R/o Dhamadha Road, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh).

10.Harjeet Singh, S/o Shri Sarvajit Singh, Aged About 43 Years R/o H. No. 22, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District Durg, (Chhattisgarh). 11.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, ( Government Undertaking ), Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6 Balard Estate, Mumbai ( Maharastra ). 12.Sardar Charan Singh Dhillan S/o Basant Singh, Aged About 65 Years Businessman, Dhamadha Road, Station Road, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

13.Sardar Sarvajeet Singh, Petrol Pump Dealer, Near Rajendra Park, G. E. Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents

For Petitioner :

Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 04/07/2016

1. During pendency of the suit preferred by respondents No.1 to 9/plaintiffs, defendant No.3/petitioner has alienated the property in favour of respondent No.10 Harjeet Singh. On such alienation, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deleting her name and adding the name of subsequent purchaser in the plaint.

2. The trial Court has rejected the prayer on observation that the subsequent purchaser would be bound by the decree of doctrine of lis pendis, therefore, he is not required to be joined.

3. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court is fully justified in taking the view that the subsequent purchaser would be bound by doctrine of lis pendis, therefore, there is no necessity of joining the subsequent purchaser. If the subsequent purchaser is always required to be joined in the suit, the trial would always be protracted because whenever the suit is progressed satisfactorily and fresh sale deed is executed, it will require de novo trial and the litigation would not come to an end.

4. Applying its earlier decision in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai1 and Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil2, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sameer Suresh Gupta through PA Holder Vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal3 has held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the 1 (2003) 6 SCC 675 2 (2010) 8 SCC 329 3 (2013) 9 SCC 374

Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

It has also been held that supervisory jurisdiction or certiorari jurisdiction is not 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. The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any such illegality or perversity committed by the Court below, which would warrant exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Ashu