Civil Revision No.5118 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5118 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 25, 2011 Sher Singh .....Petitioner v. Ram Wati alias Shakuntla and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda, 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 9.8.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that in a petition for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by petitioner-husband, he has filed an application for conducting DNA test of himself, respondent and the children, which was declined by learned Additional District Judge, Palawal, vide impugned order. Admitted facts are that age of petitioner-husband and respondent-wife is more than 70 years. Five children were born out of the wedlock, who all are married and having children. One of the daughters of the petitioner has already expired, who was born in the year 1967. Marriage Civil Revision No.5118 of 2011(O&M) -2- of the parties was solemnized in the year 1959. It may also be mentioned here that this is 4th divorce petition filed by petitioner-husband. First divorce petition was filed in the year 1986, which was dismissed upto Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 5.9.1988. Second divorce petition bearing No.46 of 1990 was also dismissed upto this Court. Thereafter he filed 3rd divorce petition on 11.8.1995, which was also dismissed upto Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 5.4.2007. In the meantime, he also filed a civil suit No.248/92 dated 28.4.1992 and in that suit as well there was an issue as to whether children born out of the wedlock were legitimate of petitioner-plaintiff or not and the question was decided by civil Court that the children are legitimate. The said judgment has also become final. Hence, in view of these facts, learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, by placing reliance upon Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 666, dismissed the application filed by petitioner for getting the DNA test conducted. In view of the aforementioned facts, application does not seem to be a bona fide one. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, 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.5118 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. 25.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge