Civil Revision No.4082 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4082 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 11, 2011 Bharat Ram .....Petitioner v. Narain Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 17.5.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, vide which appeal filed by respondents-defendants for setting aside ex parte proceedings and ex parte judgment and decree dated 3.5.1995, 25.11.1998 and 10.5.2000 respectively passed against them were set aside and learned trial Court was directed to decide the case expeditiously preferably within six months. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though in one of the applications, two of the defendants were minors, who were also proceeded ex parte and, however, ex parte proceedings against the other defendants were set aside merely on the ground that ex parte proceedings would be set aside against the minor defendants. It is also Civil Revision No.4082 of 2011(O&M) -2- contended that though lawyer of respondents-defendants expired during pendency of proceedings, however, it was for the party to remain in touch with his lawyer and file application at the appropriate stage. It is also contended that the applications for setting aside ex parte proceedings and ex parte judgment and decree were also filed at a much belated stage. Admitted facts are that two of the respondents-defendants were minor when they were proceeded ex parte without appointing any guardian to watch their interest and the decree was passed against minors. There is also no dispute that lawyer engaged by respondents-defendants died during the pendency of the proceedings and no notice was issued to petitioner by the Court after death of their lawyer. Respondents have taken the plea that they did not come to know that their lawyer had expired and when they came to know, the present applications have been filed. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned appellate 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 Civil Revision No.4082 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 11.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge