Civil Revision No.7099 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7099 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 6, 2011 Dr.Vikram Singh .....Petitioner v. Ram Kishan and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani, vide which he rejected the application of the petitioner for want of ad valorem court fee as per order dated 5.8.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani. Perusal of impugned order passed by learned trial Court shows that petitioner-plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount of Rs.11,00,000/-, which was claimed as compensation by petitioner in the suit and he was granted time to pay the same and however, the same was not paid despite opportunities having been granted to him and hence, vide impugned order, the plaint was ordered to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the `Code'). Section 2(2) of the Code defines decree as under:- “2. Definitions.- XX XX XX (1) XX XX XX (2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to Civil Revision No.7099 of 2010(O&M) -2- all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default.” Hence, rejection of plaint by Court amounts to decree as per the aforementioned definition. The present petitioner-plaintiff could challenge the said order by way of appeal before the competent Court. Hence, he is having no right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, when equally efficacious remedy is available to him, which has not been availed by him. Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani, in passing the impugned order or any grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Petitioner-plaintiff was given sufficient time to make good the court fee. Despite that he has not complied with the order and only thereafter, the impugned order was passed. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. 6.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.7099 of 2010(O&M) -3-