The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the documents and revenue records to determine the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record, influencing the court's decision to set aside the injunction order.

1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.10.2013 and 23.4.2014.

2. By virtue of the first order, i.e. order dated 3.10.2013, the trial court disposed of the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in short the CPC). The operative directions issued by the trial court in the order dated 3.10.2013 were to the effect that the defendants in the suit, which included the appellant/defendant No.1, were restrained from alienating, parting with possession and/or creating third party interest in the suit property. This order of injunction also operates qua the legal heirs, agents, assignees and representatives of the defendants including the appellant/defendant No.1. Order dated 3.10.2013 was predicated on the fact that the suit property was earlier owned by Late Tamoor Jahan Begum who had bequeathed the suit property to respondents/plaintiffs vide Will dated 30.8.1984.

3. A perusal of the order also shows that the trial court observed in paragraph 6 of its order that the suit property fell in Khasra No.1665, which after lapse of time, was changed to Khasra No.1151/3.

4. The appellant, i.e. defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the order filed a review petition.

5. By virtue of the review it was sought to be demonstrated that in the revenue records the name of Late Tamur Jahan Begum was reflected in Khatauni No.113 and that she was shown to be the owner of the land located in Khasra No.1663/1147 and not land located in Khasra No.1665/1151/3. For this purpose, the appellant/defendant No.1 sought to rely upon the documents filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff along with the suit.

6. The trial court, however, rejected the review petition vide its order dated 23.4.2014 taking the view that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The trial court based on certain judgments of the Supreme Court cited in its order sought to draw a distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record.

7. It is in these circumstances, that the appellant/defendant No.1 has preferred the present appeal.

8. Mr. Z.A. Khan, who appears on behalf of respondent No.1/plaintiff, has opposed the appeal on the ground that since the review petition was rejected, no appeal would lie. For this purpose, he refers me Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC.

9. On merits, the counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the issue as to whether or not Late Tamur Jahan Begum was the owner of the suit property was a matter for trial and, therefore, no inference was called for.

10. Counsel for the appellant/defendant No.1 argues to the contrary. Arguments made were principally in line with the arguments advanced in the appeal.

11. Having heard the counsels for the parties, I am of the view that the trial court has committed an error, which is apparent on the face of the record. The error is self-evident and egregious in nature which does not require detection by process of any detailed reasoning contrary to what trial court has held.

12. As noted above, the documents filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, which are the extracts from the record of rights, would show that Late Tamur Jahan Begum name has been shown against Khatoni No.113. Furthermore, the record of rights is also reflective of the fact that she was in possession of land which was located in Khasra No.1663/min. 1147 Banja Qadim; admeasuring 4 bighas.

13. This court vide order dated 20.1.2015, followed by 27.5.2015, directed the production of revenue record. Learned counsel appearing for the Government of NCT of Delhi has produced the record. He has affirmed the position as recorded by me hereinabove.

14. Insofar as the land located against Khatauni No.114 is concerned, the annotation against it is “in possession of Abadi Deh”, and that, the land is shown to be located in Khasra Nos.1663 Min., 1146, 1145, 1665/1151; admeasuring 3 kilas (578 bighas and 7 biswas). Quite clearly