IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5033 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 12, 2011. Gurpreet Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus M/s Muthoot Finance Limited. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 20.04.2010, Annexure P5 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Karnal vide which application filed by respondent-defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was accepted and the CR No.5033 of 2010 present petitioner was directed to get the sole arbitrator appointed to resolve the dispute as per the agreement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Admittedly, loan was taken by present petitioner-plaintiff from respondent-defendant and an agreement was executed between the parties. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement and as per clause 11 of the agreement, dispute, if any, between the parties is to be referred to sole arbitrator. Dispute arose between the parties as respondent-defendant wanted to sell the ornaments, which were pledged as collateral security and for that purpose notice was issued to petitioner-plaintiff. The said notice was challenged in the suit. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that dispute is to be referred to arbitrator as per clause 11 of the agreement executed between the parties. 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 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 2 CR No.5033 of 2010 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 12, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3