IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 913 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 14, 2011. Sukhwinder Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Nirmal Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent no.1. Mr. M.S.Virk, Advocate for Mrs. P.K.Sekhon, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. ***** 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 14.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which appeal filed by respondent no.1-defendant for setting aside order dated 22.12.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), CR No.913 of 2011 Fatehgarh Sahib was accepted and the application for ad-interim injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by present petitioner-plaintiff, was 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that partition proceedings have already been concluded and that hence, respondent no.1-defendant is having no right to get the electricity connection installed in Khasra number in dispute. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 that electricity connection has already been installed and released in Khasra no.195 as per Jamabandi for the year 2001. Perusal of file shows that respondent no.1-defendant applied for electricity connection in the year 1990. The same was proposed to be released to respondent no.1-defendant in the year 2005. The charges were deposited in the year 2007 when the present suit and the application for ad- interim injunction order was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff seeking injunction restraining respondent no.1 from getting electricity connection installed. Hence, in view of these facts, when electricity connection has already been installed by respondents no.2 and 3, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib while passing impugned order or grave 2 CR No.913 of 2011 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 14, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3