Civil Revision No.3631 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3631 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 30, 2011 Dharambir and others .....Petitioners v. Jitender Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14334-CII of 2001 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3631 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 13.9.2010, Annexure P3, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak, vide which application filed by respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint was allowed. 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract was filed by respondent-plaintiff against present petitioners-defendants on the Civil Revision No.3631 of 2011(O&M) -2- ground that an agreement dated 30.3.2005 was executed between the parties and the earnest money of Rs.4,10,000/- was also received by present petitioners from respondent-plaintiff and, however, later on they sold the same to defendant no.8 without getting the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff. Before trial could commence, the present application has been filed by respondent-plaintiff for amendment for restricting the claim to recovery of earnest money and the penalty, as per terms and conditions of the agreement, on the plea that the land in dispute has since been acquired by the Government and, hence, in view of the said fact and in view of the fact that petitioners-defendants have already sold the land to defendant no.8, he restricts his claim for recovery of earnest money and the equal amount of penalty, i.e., total Rs.8,20,000/-. It is also stated that he is also not having means to pay requisite court fee on the total sale consideration. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that earlier an application for directing respondent-plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on the entire value of the land failing which to reject the application filed by respondent-plaintiff was filed by petitioners- defendants and the same was allowed and only thereafter the present application for amendment was moved, which is beyond limitation. However, the plea has been rightly declined by learned trial Court. Respondent -plaintiff has restricted his claim for recovery of earnest money and penalty as per terms and conditions of the agreement, in view of the fact that petitioners-defendants already sold the land to a third person and the same was also acquired by the Government. Petitioners-defendants have also admitted having received earnest money. Hence, it has been Civil Revision No.3631 of 2011(O&M) -3- rightly observed by learned trial Court that the same amounts to an acknowledgment on the part of petitioners-defendants. Trial has not commenced as yet. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in allowing the application filed by respondent-plaintiff 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. 30.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3631 of 2011(O&M) -4-