Civil Revision No.3130 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3130 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2011 Bhagirath .....Petitioner v. Bhagwan Dass alias Bhagwana Ram and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.L.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.22086-CII of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 35 days in filing the application is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.22087-CII of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 5.7.2011 dismissing the revision petition in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the revision petition at its original number. Civil Revision No.3130 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 19.1.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sirsa, as well as judgment dated 15.2.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide which application filed under Order Civil Revision No.3130 of 2011(O&M) -2- 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by present petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the orders passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, parties are real brothers. Admitted facts are that earlier father of the parties was in possession as gair marusi of the land in dispute. Assertion of the petitioner-plaintiff is that he has inherited tenancy right to the extent of 1/3rd after death of his father. However, admitted facts are that petitioner-plaintiff was in service and used to live separate from defendants for the last so many years. Defendants used to reside with their father. Land in dispute was purchased by defendants vide registered sale deed dated 7.11.2000 and mutation was also entered and sanctioned in their favour. Plea of respondents-defendants is that they used to cultivate the land as their father used to remain ill and the land was never cultivated by petitioner-plaintiff as he was in service. Father of the parties also relinquished his tenancy rights in favour of the defendants by furnishing an affidavit. Hence, in view of these facts, both the Courts came to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out in favour of present petitioner-plaintiff and that the balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour and hence, application for ad interim injunction order filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders or that a grave injustice or gross Civil Revision No.3130 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be having any bearing on the decision of this case by learned trial Court on merit. 14.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge