Civil Revision No.4188 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4188 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 18, 2011 Joginder Singh .....Petitioner v. Ajit Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.16598-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4188 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.3.2011, Annexure P7, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mukerian, vide which request of petitioner for appointing second local commissioner in pending suit was declined. 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 a suit for possession of land measuring 2 marlas out of 4 marlas, after removing the superstructure with a consequential relief of injunction restraining the present petitioner and respondent no.2 from raising any Civil Revision No.4188 of 2011(O&M) -2- further construction was filed by respondent-plaintiff. Suit was contested by petitioner-defendant no.1 on the plea that no portion of land in dispute was encroached by him. As per order of the Court, Shri Amarjit Singh, Kanungo Halqa, was appointed as Local Commissioner, who demarcated the land in dispute and submitted his report, Annexure P3. Objections to the report were filed by present petitioner-defendant. Lateron, application for appointing some other Local Commissioner was filed and, however, the said request was declined by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier demarcation was not done by the Local Commissioner as per the instructions and hence petitioner filed the objections to the said report and therefore, it is contended that second Local Commissioner may be appointed. However, perusal of order passed by learned trial Court shows that it has observed that the Local Commissioner had demarcated the suit property by fixing pucca points in the presence of both the parties and that the report also bears signatures of defendants and hence, Court was not inclined to appoint another Local Commissioner and dismissed the said application. 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 Civil Revision No.4188 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 18.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge