Civil Revision No.2126 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2126 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 1, 2011 Jasmer Kaur and another .....Petitioners v. Jaswant Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.HNS Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8427-CII of 2011 Petitioners have placed on record true copies of Annexures P1 and P2, however, they have not placed on record certified copies of the same. However, they request for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P1 and P2. Request is declined. Civil Revision No.2126 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 20.10.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ropar, vide which ex parte proceedings initiated against respondent no.1-Jaswant Singh have been set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Civil Revision No.2126 of 2011(O&M) -2- It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no.1 was duly served through Superintendent of Jail, Patiala, and hence, he has been rightly proceeded ex parte by learned trial Court. It is contended that learned trial Court has committed illegality in setting aside the ex parte proceedings. Admitted facts are that respondent no.1-defendant no.1 remained confined in Central Jail, from September 2000 till September 2007. He was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.1.2006, when he was locked in Central Jail, Patiala. Learned trial Court has specifically mentioned in the impugned order that summons were not sent through Jail Superintendent, Patiala. Even in the suit, address of respondent no.1 has been given of Village Oind, Tehsil and District Rupnanar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show this Court as to whether any application was filed by petitioner for effecting service upon respondent no.1 through Superintendent of Jail, Patiala. Certified copy of Annexure P1 has also not been filed to show that order passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one. Hence, 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.2126 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. 1.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge