Civil Revision No.3842 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3842 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: June 3, 2011 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt.Dharam Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.S.Swaitch, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.15035-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3842 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.10.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned trial Court vide which objections filed by petitioner-plaintiff on the report of Local Commissioner kept pending, to be decided at the time of final hearing. 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 on the request of petitioner-plaintiff, Local Commissioner was appointed, who has given his report. Petitioner-plaintiff filed objections to the report of Local Commissioner. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Civil Revision No.3842 of 2011(O&M) -2- decided that the objections to the report of Local Commissioner would be decided at the time of final arguments, after evidence being led by both the parties. 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. 3.6.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3842 of 2011(O&M) -3-