Civil Revision No.4255 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4255 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2011 Suraj Mal and another .....Petitioners v. Raj Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Dr.Parveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.16847-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4255 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.5.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Siwani, Camp at Bhiwani, vide which respondent no.1-plaintiff has been permitted to examine Rajender Parshad, PW4, as a witness in rebuttal evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 declaration was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff and the defendants have become owners in possession in equal shares of the agricultural land, after death of father of plaintiff, defendants Civil Revision No.4255 of 2011(O&M) -2- no.1 to 5, 7 to 11 and husband of defendant no.6-Smt.Gindhodi. He has also challenged the validity of will allegedly relied upon by present petitioners-defendants no.1 and 2, vide which property in dispute was bequeathed by deceased Bhale Ram in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff, present petitioners and respondents-defendants no.3 to 5. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by petitioners-defendants no.1 and 2 for proving the said will, allegedly executed by their father. Respondent no.1- plaintiff made a request to the Court to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by petitioners-defendants regarding the will, as present petitioners are propounders of the will, which has been challenged by respondent no.1-plaintiff on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. In view of these fact, in my view, learned trial Court has rightly observed that initial onus to prove the will is upon present petitioners-defendants no.1 and 2 and that respondent no.1-plaintiff has right to rebut the same to show that the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation or that the same is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Moreover perusal of statement of counsel for respondent no.1-plaintiff dated 7.1.2011 shows that evidence of respondent no.1-plaintiff was closed in affirmative, which shows that he had reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by petitioners-defendants on the question of will. Moreover stand of respondent no.1-plaintiff is that all the legal heirs of his deceased-father had inherited the property in dispute in equal share. Alleged will, on which reliance has been placed upon by present petitioners-defendants no.1 and 2, who are real brothers of respondent no.1-plaintiff is also in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff and however, he has come to the Court with clean hands and challenged the same and prays that right in the property be given Civil Revision No.4255 of 2011(O&M) -3- to all the legal heirs of his deceased-father, including his mother and sisters. 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 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. 15.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge