IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6626 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: July 27, 2011. Sanjay Kumar. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Sub Divisional Officer (Operation), Sub Division, DHBVN Limited and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 03.03.2008, Annexure P1 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri vide which application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules CR No.6626 of 2009 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code was dismissed and order dated 09.10.2009, Annexure P2 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide which appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by learned courts below. Admitted facts are that, an oral exchange had taken place between Samunder, father of present petitioner-plaintiff and respondent- defendant No.2, Balbir who are real brothers, regarding Khasra No.777/1 (0 Bigha 2 Biswa). As per the said oral exchange mutation No.1131 dated 25.11.1991 was sanctioned. In the said mutation there was no mention regarding fate of tubewell connection existing in the said Khasra number. There is also no dispute that the said electricity connection was released in the name of respondent-defendant No.2. The said Khasra number is now in possession of petitioner-plaintiff by way of exchange. After exchange, respondent-defendant No.2 has installed a new tubewell in his land for irrigating the same including the Khasra number which was obtained by way of oral exchange. Respondent-defendant No.2 wanted to get the electricity connection shifted from Khasra No.777/1 to new tubewell, which has been got installed by him in his own land. Petitioner-plaintiff filed application for ad-interim injunction order restraining respondent-defendant No.2 from shifting the electricity connection from Khasra No.777/1 on the plea that he had been using the said tubewell for irrigating his land. The plea was not accepted by learned trial Court on the ground that as there is no mention about the tubewell at the time of exchange, petitioner-plaintiff has no prima 2 CR No.6626 of 2009 facie case in his favour. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed on the same ground. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that he has to pay more charges for taking new electricity connection for running the tubewell installed in Khasra No.777/1, whereas respondent- defendant No.2 can take a new electricity connection. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent-defendant No.2 that he has already got the electricity connection existed in Khasra No.777/1 transferred to his own tubewell on 10.03.2008 after depositing necessary charges for the same and that petitioner-plaintiff can use the tubewell, which is already in existence in said Khasra number by taking fresh electricity connection after paying necessary charges. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that there is no mention about the fate of tubewell in the agreement of oral exchange and when the electricity connection was in the name of respondent-defendant No.2, he is having right to get the same transferred to his new tubewell. Moreover, petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to take new electricity connection for running the tubewell already existed in Khasra No.777/1, which he has got by way of exchange. Respondent-defendant No.2 is not claiming any right in the tubewell already existed in Khasra No.777/1, which came to the share of petitioner-plaintiff in the exchange. He has only got the electricity connection shifted to his new tubewell. Electricity connection is in the name of respondent-defendant No.2. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. 3 CR No.6626 of 2009 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) July 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4