Civil Revision No.6273 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6273 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 14, 2011 Jhangi Ram .....Petitioner v. Arun Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kameshwar Gumber, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 8.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, vide which application of petitioner-defendant for right to cross- examine the witnesses of respondent-plaintiff was declined and also for quashing of order dated 16.10.2010 vide which evidence of the respondent- plaintiff was closed and subsequent order dated 30.8.2011, vide which evidence of petitioner-defendant was also closed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that the present suit pertains to the year 2003 and hence, it has already become more than eight years old. Perusal of various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court shows that the case was fixed for evidence of Civil Revision No.6273 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondent-plaintiff for 18.1.2005 when PW Arun Kumar was present and, however, he could not be examined as counsel for the defendant was not available and the case was adjourned for 12.4.2005. On 12.4.2005 again PWs Arun Kumar and Sohan Lal were present but they could not be examined as the Court was busy. On 4.11.2006 again PWs Arun Kumar, Sohan Lal and Ravinder Kumar were present but they could not be examined as counsel for defendant was not present. On 12.2.2007 again PWs Arun Kumar, Sohan Lal and Ravinder Kumar were present but they could not be examined at the request of counsel for the defendant only. On 22.1.2009, examination-in-chief of PW Arun Kumar was recorded and, however, his cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the defendant. On 6.4.2009 Arun Kumar was again present and, however, again there was a request on behalf of the defendant and hence, he was bound down for 11.5.2009. Case was taken up on 30.7.2009 when PW Arun Kumar was present for his cross-examination and, however, on the request of counsel for the defendant, the same was adjourned for 10.10.2009. On 10.10.2009, none appeared for present petitioner-defendant and hence, he was proceeded ex parte. On that date as well, again the witness was present. However, on the next date, i.e., on 9.11.2009 an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings was filed and the same was allowed by learned trial Court subject to payment of `1000/- as cost and another opportunity was given to the petitioner-defendant for cross- examination of PW Arun Kumar and for remaining evidence of plaintiff. Case was taken up on 28.9.2010, when two more respondent's witnesses were examined and, however, there cross-examination was deferred as there was some compromise talks between the parties and the case was adjourned Civil Revision No.6273 of 2011(O&M) -3- for 16.10.2010. On 16.10.2010, the witnesses were produced by the respondent-plaintiff and an opportunity was given to counsel for the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses and, however, no cross- examination of the witnesses was done and hence, cross-examination was recorded as nil by learned trial Court and the case was adjourned for evidence of the defendant. Order dated 16.10.2010 was not challenged at that time and the case remained pending for evidence of present petitioner- defendant. Thereafter, an application was filed for recalling of order dated 16.10.2010 vide which cross-examination of witnesses of respondent- plaintiff was recorded as nil. However, the said application was dismissed by learned trial Court. Two DWs were examined on behalf of petitioner- defendant. No other witness was produced despite last and final opportunity. Hence, evidence of defendant was closed by learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.8.2011. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that on the day when impugned order dated 16.10.2010 was passed, counsel was busy in other Court and hence, it is contended that there was sufficient ground for adjournment. He has also placed reliance upon Foodworld Super Markets Ltd. and another v. H.Sujan Singh and others, 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 765 (SC). However, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that there was any bona fide on the part of petitioner-defendant in not cross- examining the witnesses of respondent-plaintiff on several dates. The suit has already become more than 8 years old. Sufficient opportunities were also availed by petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said Civil Revision No.6273 of 2011(O&M) -4- that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned orders 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. 14.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge