Civil Revision No.4525 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4525 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 27, 2011 Bhushan Kumar .....Petitioner v. Municipal Council Raman and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.17829-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4525 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.7.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Talwandi Sabo, vide which evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed. 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 issues were framed by learned trial Court in the suit filed by petitioner- plaintiff on 29.9.2010 and the case was adjourned to 19.11.2010 for evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff. Vide order dated 29.9.2010, trial Court directed the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit process money, diet money and to file list of witnesses within seven days, as well as supply copies of affidavits Civil Revision No.4525 of 2011(O&M) -2- of the witnesses, to be examined, in advance to the opposite party. However, the said order was not complied with by petitioner-plaintiff. Neither any list of witnesses was filed, nor any diet money and process fee was deposited nor any affidavit of the witnesses was filed on 19.11.2010. Order dated 19.11.2010 reveals that date was requested for evidence of the plaintiff on the ground that the witness could not come present due to some urgent work in the relation. Even affidavit of petitioner-plaintiff was not tendered. However, in the interest of justice for evidence of petitioner- plaintiff, case was adjourned at his own responsibility for 13.1.2011. As 13.1.2011 was declared a holiday, the case was taken up on 14.1.2011, on which date as well, no witness of plaintiff was present and date was requested on the plea that witnesses could not come present as 13.1.2011 was declared a holiday and, however, the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff at his own responsibility for 14.2.2011 subject to last chance. On 14.2.2011, only a Clerk of Municipal Council PW Jagtar Singh was present and on his request, he was bound down for 21.3.2011. On that date as well, plaintiff was not examined and however PW Jagtar Singh along with one another PW was present and they were partly examined and, however, their cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for defendant no.1. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 19.4.2011. On 19.4.2011, PW OP Garg and Jagtar Singh were examined. Petitioner- plaintiff also tendered his affidavit regarding examination-in-chief and the case was adjourned to 13.5.2011 for his cross-examination as well as for any other evidence at his own responsibility subject to last opportunity. On 13.5.2011, petitioner-plaintiff made a request that his daughter is ill and hence for his cross-examination, the case was adjourned for 23.5.2011. On Civil Revision No.4525 of 2011(O&M) -3- 23.5.2011 cross-examination of petitioner-plaintiff was deferred as he was to be confronted with some record, which was not brought by the concerned official and hence, the case was adjourned to 3.6.2011 when cross- examination of plaintiff was concluded. Certain documents were also tendered by petitioner-plaintiff. Petitioner-plaintiff also made a statement to conclude his evidence on the next date of hearing, failing which the evidence would be deemed to have been closed. Hence, in the interest of justice, another opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to him subject to payment of Rs.500/- as cost and the case was adjourned to 20.7.2011, on which date an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff directing Municipal Council to produce original affidavit, allegedly executed by Bhushan Kumar, petitioner-plaintiff, for the purpose of comparison of signatures from some expert, which was declined by learned trial Court and the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was also closed vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that the application was tried to be moved earlier, i.e., in between 3.6.2011 and 20.7.2011 by petitioner-plaintiff and, however, the same could not be filed as the Presiding Officer was promoted and no other Presiding Officer was holding that Court. Though this fact is not reflected in the impugned order and, however, even if it is taken to be correct, petitioner-plaintiff has failed to convince this Court as to why this application was not moved when the case was fixed for the first time for his evidence, after framing of issues. Sufficient opportunities have been granted to him by learned trial Court to conclude the evidence. Civil Revision No.4525 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. 27.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge