Civil Revision No.5068 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5068 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2011 Jasbir Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Smt.Kirpal Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioners-defendants have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide which application filed by respondents- plaintiffs for leading additional evidence, i.e., for production of copy of conveyance deed executed on behalf of the President of India through Tehsildar (Sales) in favour of respondents-plaintiffs, was accepted. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration and possession was filed by the original plaintiff, namely, Satinder Pal Singh claiming himself to be the owner of the property in dispute. Suit was contested by present petitioners-defendants as well as by respondent-defendant no.1. During pendency of the suit, original plaintiff-Satinder Pal Singh died and he is now being represented by his Civil Revision No.5068 of 2011(O&M) -2- legal representatives, i.e., the present contesting respondents. An application was filed on behalf of the legal representatives of Satinder Pal Singh for permission to tender conveyance deed executed on behalf of the President of India through Tehsildar (Sales) in favour of the original plaintiff regarding premises in dispute on the plea that the conveyance deed was earlier not in their knowledge and that the same was found by them after death of their predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Satinder Pal Singh from his files and thereafter they applied for certified copy of the same in the office of Sub Registrar, Shahabad. Application was contested by petitioners- defendants by filing reply, Annexure P5, mainly on the ground that all the documents were available with Satinder Pal Singh, the original plaintiff at the time of filing the suit and hence, it cannot be said that his legal representatives were not aware of the said conveyance deed. Hence, it is denied that the conveyance deed came in their knowledge after the death of plaintiff-Satinder Pal Singh. Learned trial Court allowed the said application and permitted the conveyance deed to be exhibited vide impugned order by observing that the conveyance deed is necessary for the decision of the case and hence, the application was allowed subject to payment of ` 1,000/- as costs, to be deposited in the legal aid. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that as no such plea regarding execution of conveyance deed in favour of plaintiff-Satinder Pal Singh was taken in the plaint and hence the conveyance deed cannot be allowed to be taken in evidence. However, the said plea cannot be accepted. Though application has not been opposed on this ground in the reply and, however, even if it is taken that this plea was not specifically taken in the plaint, the document is Civil Revision No.5068 of 2011(O&M) -3- essential for deciding the real controversy in dispute between the parties. Document is such, which cannot be fabricated, as it is a conveyance deed regarding the property in dispute executed by Tehsildar (Sales) in favour of plaintiff-Satinder Pal Singh. 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 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. 24.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge