Civil Revision No.4339 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4339 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 Sham Lal .....Petitioner v. Chander Parkash and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.D.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.17195-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4339 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.4.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Rewari, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was ordered to be closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff 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 issues in this case were framed on 26.2.2010 and the case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff for 19.4.2010. Petitioner- plaintiff was also directed to file process fee, diet money and list of witnesses within seven days. The said order was not complied with. It has not been shown that any such list of witnesses was filed. No witness of the Civil Revision No.4339 of 2011(O&M) -2- petitioner-plaintiff was present on 19.4.2010 and the case was adjourned for 13.5.2010 for his evidence at his own responsibility. On 13.5.2010, two witnesses were examined and the case was adjourned for 12.8.2010 for remaining evidence at his own responsibility. On 12.8.2010, when no witness was present, last opportunity was given for 20.10.2010 at his own responsibility. On 20.10.2010 also no witness was present and, however, on request, the case was adjourned for 30.1.2011 at his own responsibility subject to payment of `200/- as cost. However, as 30.1.2011, was Sunday, the case was taken up on 31.1.2011 and adjourned for 8.4.2011. On 8.4.2011 as well, no witness was present and however, the cost was paid and the case was adjourned for 9.4.2011 for the same purpose at his own responsibility subject to payment of `500/- as cost. On 9.4.2011 as well, when no witness was present, hence, learned trial Court was having no other option but to close the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff. 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 Civil Revision No.4339 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 17.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge