Civil Revision No.3535 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3535 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 27, 2011 Sh.Amit Chopra .....Petitioner v. Smt.Pooja .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.S.Bedi, Advocate for the caveator-respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.13984-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3535 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.5.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed by respondent under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent 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 a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act') for divorce was filed by petitioner-husband against respondent-wife Civil Revision No.3535 of 2011(O&M) -2- before competent court at Jalandhar. Part evidence was recorded at Jalandhar, when an application was moved by respondent-wife before this Court for transfer of the petition from Jalandhar to Ludhiana, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 2.7.2009, passed in Transfer Application No.295 of 2008, Annexure P1, with the direction that petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by petitioner-husband and petition under Section 9 of the Act, which was filed by respondent-wife at Ludhiana, are required to be adjudicated by the same Court. It was also directed that cross-examination of the witnesses, whose examination-in-chief was already recorded at Jalandhar, would be completed by that Court at Jalandhar and thereafter the case would be transferred to Ludhiana. Accordingly, both petitions, i.e., one filed under Section 13 of the Act by petitioner-husband and the another filed under Section 9 of the Act by respondent-wife are being tried in the same Court at Ludhiana. However, evidence of both the parties in petition under Section 13 has already been concluded whereas petition filed under Section 9 of the Act is still at the stage of evidence of respondent-wife. Hence, on the request of respondent-wife, learned trial Court vide impugned order directed that as both the petitions were consolidated and evidence was recorded only in petition under Section 13 of the Act, and as the said evidence could not be read for the purpose of decision of petition under Section 9 of the Act, hence, the decision of petition filed under Section 13 of the Act was stayed till conclusion of the evidence in petition under Section 9 of the Act, so that both could be decided together. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed subsequently to a petition filed Civil Revision No.3535 of 2011(O&M) -3- under Section 13 of the Act by petitioner-husband and that in case petition under Section 13 of the Act is decided, the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act would become infructuous. Hence, it is contended that petition under Section 13 of the Act should be decided without awaiting for conclusion of the evidence in petition under Section 9 of the Act. It is also contended that in the alternative, both the petitions can be decided on the same evidence, which have been led in petition under Section 13 of the Act. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Biswajit Sharma v. Deblina Panja, 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 31. So far as Biswajit Sharma's case (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of present case as in that case a petition was filed by wife challenging legality of the marriage and subsequently petition was filed by the husband and hence, it was held that if the former suit, in which legality of marriage has been challenged, succeeds and by obtaining decree in that case, there would be no need to proceed with the subsequent petition. However, in the present case two different petitions have been filed, i.e., one filed by present petitioner and another by respondent-wife. Those were not consolidated before concluding the evidence in petition under Section 13 of the Act. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly observed that evidence recorded in petition under Section 13 of the Act cannot be read for the purpose of decision of application filed under Section 9 of the Act. Justice requires that both the petition should be decided by the same Court, as has been observed by this Court while deciding transfer application, vide order, Annexure P1. Civil Revision No.3535 of 2011(O&M) -4- 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. However, as evidence in petition under Section 13 of the Act has already been concluded, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the conclusion of evidence in petition filed under Section 9 of the Act as well. 27.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3535 of 2011(O&M) -5-