IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2248 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 19, 2011. Surjit Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Harbans Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 12.03.2011, Annexure P3 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nabha vide which the application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of local commissioner for demarcation of land in dispute, was dismissed. CR No.2248 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Admitted facts are that, petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for possession of land in dispute on the basis of demarcation report dated 09.06.2008 already obtained by him from revenue officer i.e. Halqa Kanungo, who was appointed as local commissioner to decide the controversy in dispute. Report was challenged by respondent-defendant who took the plea that there was no encroachment on his part. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. Evidence of present petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order of the court. No application was moved on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of another local commissioner before evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was started or even before the conclusion of his evidence. Hence, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for appointment of local commissioner. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that application for appointment of local commissioner should not have been rejected by the court on the ground of delay only as under Order 26 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, local commissioner can be appointed even suo-motto by the trial Court. He has also placed reliance upon Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala Cantt v. Shri Neeko, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 506 and Nirmala v. Nandakumar, 2000(2) Civ.C.C. 497. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 that it has been consistently held by this Court in various judgments that revision against order declining appointment of local 2 CR No.2248 of 2011 commissioner by learned trial Court either under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of Constitution of India is not maintainable. On the point he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench’ judgment of this Court rendered in Smt. Harvinder Kaur and another v. Godha Ram and another, AIR 1979, P&H 76 and subsequent judgments rendered by this Court in Sumer Chand Jain v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mangla, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 445 and Rajiv Kumar Batra and Kashmiri Lal Sika, 2010(6) RCR (Civil) 37. Law has been well settled by this Court and it has been consistently held that revision petition against order of trial Court refusing the appointment of local commissioner is not revisable either under Section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Moreover, in this case land in dispute was already got demarcated by petitioner-plaintiff from revenue officer and the present suit is on the basis of that report only. Evidence of both the parties has already been concluded when the present application for appointment of another local commissioner has been filed on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the application is not bonafide one. Hence, 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 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 3 CR No.2248 of 2011 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 19, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4