Civil Revision No.6988 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6988 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2011 Jagtar Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt.Raksha Devi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.27232-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6988 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 12.10.2011, Annexure P7, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SBS Nagar, whereby while declining request of petitioner-plaintiff for another opportunity for producing two witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been closed. 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. Briefly sated present suit was filed by petitioner-plaintiff in the year 2004. After filing written statement by respondent-defendant, issues were framed on 17.1.2005 and the case was adjourned for 23.5.2005 for Civil Revision No.6988 of 2011(O&M) -2- evidence of petitioner-plaintiff. Petitioner-plaintiff was also directed to file list of witnesses, process fee and diet money by learned trial Court. However, the said order was not complied with as no list of witnesses was filed. On 23.5.2005 no witness of petitioner-plaintiff was present. The case was adjourned for 7.11.2005 on which date as well no witness was present. However, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff, third and last opportunity was given for 27.2.2006. On 27.2.2006 as well no witness was present and, however, another opportunity was granted by learned trial Court and the case was adjourned for 4.5.2006, on which date as well no witness was present and another opportunity was granted and the case was adjourned for 1.8.2006. On 1.8.2006, affidavit of only one PW was tendered and for remaining evidence, the case was adjourned for 28.9.2006. On 28.9.2006 as well no witness was present and another opportunity was granted and the case was adjourned for 7.11.2006, on which date only one witness was present, who had not come to the Court with complete record and hence, the case was adjourned for 19.2.2007. On 19.2.2007, affidavits of three witness were tendered and the case was adjourned for 31.5.2007. However, in the meantime, file was sent to learned appellate Court and after receipt of file from learned appellate Court, the case was adjourned for evidence of plaintiff for 18.9.2008. On 18.9.2008, when no witness was present case was adjourned for 10.12.2008 and however, as the Court was busy in pre Lok Adalat and hence the case was adjourned for 21.4.2009, on which date as no witness was present, the case was adjourned for 20.7.2009, on which date as well no witness was present and the case was adjourned for 20.8.2009. However, on 20.8.2009 again no witness was present and hence, the case was adjourned for Civil Revision No.6988 of 2011(O&M) -3- 25.9.2009 when order was passed closing evidence of petitioner-plaintiff. The said order was not challenged before this Court by petitioner-plaintiff. Rather a review application was filed by him before learned trial Court, which was dismissed on 4.8.2011. Thereafter civil revision bearing No.5058 of 2011 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court by granting one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to produce the witnesses at his own responsibility which were already examined-in-chief for their cross-examination so that their statements may be read in evidence. Accordingly, an opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to the present petitioner for the purpose. On the date fixed only one witness was presented, who was cross-examined, however, no other witnesses was presented and hence evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that two of the witnesses were official witnesses and that they were summoned for the purpose of cross-examination by the petitioner- plaintiff. Diet money was also deposited and the summons were also taken dasti. Further contends that service of one of the official witnesses was served through another official of that office and, however, the other witness could not be served. Hence, it is contended that another opportunity be granted for cross-examination of these witnesses. However, perusal of entire history of this case, as discussed above, shows that petitioner-plaintiff is misusing the process of the Court. The suit has already become more than seven years old and despite several opportunities, he has not concluded his evidence. Despite one opportunity granted by this Court for the purpose of cross-examination of his witnesses, Civil Revision No.6988 of 2011(O&M) -4- who had already been examined, they could not be produced by petitioner- plaintiff. Only one witness was produced, who was cross-examined. Hence, merely on the ground that diet money was deposited for two witnesses and the summons were taken dasti, he could not be permitted to further linger on the matter. 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 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. 16.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge