Civil Revision No.5456 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5456 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 7, 2011 Shri Hans Raj and another .....Petitioners v. Sudesh Rani and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.21728-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5456 of 2011 Petitioners-defendants have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.6.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which application filed by petitioners-defendants for additional evidence was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. The suit pertains to the year 2007. Evidence of respondent- plaintiff was closed on 6.4.2009. Thereafter sufficient opportunities were availed by petitioners-defendants to adduce evidence. Last opportunity was granted to them for evidence by learned trial Court for 21.5.2010 and it was made clear that if they fail to lead any other evidence, the same would be deemed to have been closed and, however, despite that petitioners- Civil Revision No.5456 of 2011(O&M) -2- defendants failed to conclude the evidence on that date and hence their evidence was closed vide order dated 21.5.2010. The said order has not been challenged by petitioners-defendants. Rather the petitioners- defendants moved another application before learned trial Court for additional evidence, i.e., after about four months of the passing of the order, vide which their evidence was closed, which was declined by learned trial Court. 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. 7.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge