Civil Revision No.5025 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5025 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2011 Ram Sarup .....Petitioner v. Ashok Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Mohd.Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.20008-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5025 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.8.2011, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jalandhar, vide which application filed by petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') for amendment of the petition has been dismissed. 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 an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, was filed by present petitioner-landlord against respondent-tenant for his ejectment from the shop in dispute, inter alia, on Civil Revision No.5025 of 2011(O&M) -2- the ground of personal necessity. The petition was contested by respondent-defendant. Evidence was also led by both the parties. The present application for amendment has been filed when the petition was fixed for arguments. It is pertinent to reproduce the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” Law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 that no application for amendment is to be allowed after commencement of trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In this case it was second amendment sought by petitioner. Earlier as well application for amendment was filed and in that application amendment has been allowed. Specific plea was taken by respondent- defendant in the written statement that Ravi, grand son of present petitioner, was not residing with him and he was having his independent residence, having independent work and he is not dependent upon the petitioner. However, despite that no application for amendment was filed at appropriate stage. Now by way of amendment, petitioner intends to amend Civil Revision No.5025 of 2011(O&M) -3- the petition and intends to take the plea that his son Rajinder Kumar as well as his grand son Ravi are residing with him and are fully dependent upon him. 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. 19.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge