Civil Revision No.4936 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4936 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 Ajit Singh .....Petitioner v. Gurbachan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.19715-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4936 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 6.6.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ferozepur, Annexure P3, vide which order dated 9.12.2010, passed by learned trial Court closing evidence of petitioner-defendant, was confirmed and application for recalling the said order was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order and order dated 9.12.2010 passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff Kartar Singh, who is now represented by his legal representatives, had filed a suit for a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.4.2005 executed by present petitioner-defendant Civil Revision No.4936 of 2011(O&M) -2- in his favour regarding the land in dispute. The suit was filed on 10.11.2005. It was contested by present petitioner-defendant. Issues were framed on 29.5.2006. Case was fixed for evidence of respondent-plaintiff. During pendency of the suit compromise talks were also going on between the parties. However, evidence of respondent-plaintiff was closed and the case was fixed for evidence of present petitioner-defendant for 8.4.2010. He was also directed to file process fee, diet money and list of witnesses within seven days. However, neither such application, nor any process fee and diet money was filed, nor any evidence was present on 8.4.2011 and the case was adjourned for 20.5.2010. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 2.6.2010, then adjourned for 22.7.2010, then for 23.8.2010, thereafter adjourned for 20.9.2010, then adjourned for 16.11.2010, on which date last opportunity was granted to him subject to payment of cost of `200/- and the case was adjourned for 9.12.2010. However, despite that no evidence was present on 9.12.2010, nor cost was paid, which was also demanded by other side and hence, the impugned order was passed by learned trial Court closing evidence of petitioner-defendant. The said order has not been challenged before this Court. Rather an application for recalling of the said order was filed before learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ferozepur, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 6.6.2011 on the plea that the same was not maintainable. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner only wants to examine one witness, who is very essential for the just decision of the case. However, already sufficient opportunities have been availed by petitioner when order closing evidence dated 9.12.2010 was passed. Even Civil Revision No.4936 of 2011(O&M) -3- cost subject to payment of which the case was adjourned for 9.12.2010, has not been paid. Hence, learned trial Court was having no other alternative but to close the evidence of the petitioner-defendant. Moreover suit pertains to the year 2005. The same has already become more than six years old. 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. 17.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge