Civil Revision No.6690 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6690 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 3, 2011 Mangal alias Ramji Lal .....Petitioner v. Pappu and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 3.9.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Palwal, vide which application filed by the petitioner for examining finger print expert was declined and the evidence of petitioner-defendant 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 earlier evidence of petitioner-defendant was closed by learned trial Court against which revision petition bearing No.3064 of 2011 was filed by petitioner-defendant, which was disposed of vide order dated 9.5.2011 and the present petitioner-defendant was granted one opportunity to conclude evidence at his own responsibility. However, instead of one, learned trial Court granted two opportunities to petitioner-defendant and despite that evidence was not concluded. Rather after availing so many opportunities, Civil Revision No.6690 of 2011(O&M) -2- an application was moved for directing mother of the plaintiffs to give sample of thumb impression for examining finger print expert. No such application was earlier filed. In view of these facts, it is a clear case of misuse of process of Court. Hence, 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. 3.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge