Civil Revision No.5738 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5738 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Harbhajan Singh .....Petitioner v. Baldev Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.C.Sibal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.22950-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5738 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 19.4.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phagwara, and order dated 10.5.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which application for restoration of the suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit against respondents-defendants in the year 2000 for specific performance of the contract dated 12.10.1999. Civil Revision No.5738 of 2011(O&M) -2- Suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Case was fixed for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff by learned trial Court for several times. Petitioner- plaintiff availed 13 opportunities to adduce evidence but failed to produce even a single witness. Even the cost was also imposed upon petitioner- plaintiff for non-production of evidence. Three last opportunities were also afforded by learned trial Court to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence however, no evidence was adduced. On 24.1.2005 when no evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was present, an amount of `100/- was imposed upon him as a cost and the case was adjourned to 23.3.2005. Again on 23.3.2005 the case was adjourned to 18.4.2005 for evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff subject to payment of `200/- as cost. Thereafter on 11.5.2005 also no evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was present and, however counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff gave an undertaking to conclude the evidence on the next date of hearing, i.e., 10.6.2005. On 10.6.2005 in the pre-lunch session, a request was made by counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff for taking the file after lunch session for evidence and however in the after lunch session neither plaintiff nor his counsel appeared and hence, the Court was having no other alternative but to dismiss the suit filed by present petitioner- plaintiff in default under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner-plaintiff availed sufficient opportunities for a period of two years. Ground taken by petitioner-plaintiff for restoration of the suit is that he had gone to some relations as there was some death in his relation. However, no such plea was taken by his counsel nor any application was filed in this regard on 10.6.2005. Even no evidence was adduced before learned Courts below that any such relative had expired and hence, he could not appear. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any Civil Revision No.5738 of 2011(O&M) -3- illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below 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. 26.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge