Civil Revision No.7243 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7243 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2011 Janak Raj .....Petitioner v. Jagjit Singh alias Jagga Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.28138-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.7243 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 11.11.2011 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam, on an application filed by petitioner, Annexure P3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 an application, Annexure P3, was moved by present petitioner- defendant praying that respondent-plaintiff be directed to take an oath in the name of his son that he had paid `6,00,000/- to present petitioner-defendant. Evidence of the parties was already recorded when this application was Civil Revision No.7243 of 2011(O&M) -2- filed. Statement on oath of respondent-plaintiff was also recorded and hence, prayer was rightly declined by learned trial Court by observing that there is no such procedure that the Court can direct other party to take oath in the name of his son after his examination as per law. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of argument, oral objection was taken by petitioner-defendant that the agreement Ex.P1 was insufficiently stamped. However, on the objection of petitioner, learned trial Court has ordered for impounding the said document and respondent was directed to make good deficiency of the stamp duty alongwith penalty under the law. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the order on this point has not been passed by learned trial Court after following the due procedure under the Stamp Act. However, the objection is not a bona fide one. It seems that the objection has been taken just to prolong the litigation. Moreover, learned trial Court decided the said objection in favour of petitioner-defendant and the other party was directed to make good the deficiency of the stamp duty. 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 Civil Revision No.7243 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 26.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge