Civil Revision No.3859 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3859 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 3, 2011 M/s B.R.Spinners (P) Limited .....Petitioner v. M/s Fowler s.a.Conesa, 1727/29 (1870) Avellaneda, Argentina .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.15083-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3859 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.3.2011, Annexure P3, vide which learned trial Court has kept pending the application for consideration filed by petitioner-defendant, to be decided at the time of final hearing, after evidence of petitioner-defendant is completed. 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for recovery was filed by respondent-plaintiff against the present Civil Revision No.3859 of 2011(O&M) -2- petitioner-defendant. The suit was contested by petitioner-defendant, in which no such plea was taken that respondent-plaintiff-Company is not in existence. Issues were framed. Evidence of respondent-plaintiff was completed. Case was at the stage of evidence of petitioner-defendant when a vague application has been filed taking the plea that petitioner-defendant has come to know that respondent-plaintiff-Company is not in existence and hence, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed. The application was contested by respondent-plaintiff. Learned trial Court kept the said application pending, to be decided after evidence adduced by the petitioner-defendant. 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.” Civil Revision No.3859 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 3.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge