IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1099 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 17, 2011. Ajit Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Kalia @Kali Ram and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Tyagi, Advocate for respondent no.1. ***** 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 22.12.2010, Annexure P5 vide which learned trial Court has allowed application of respondent no.1-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. CR No.1099 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. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that, initially the present suit was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff alongwith co-plaintiffs, namely, Ram Dutt and Ram Phal for a decree for possession by way of pre-emption of land in dispute, which was purchased by present petitioner-defendant from one of the co-owners, Jagdish Chand in the entire Khewat to the extent of 1/3 share on the plea that they are in possession of the same as tenants and hence, they are having right to pre- empt the sale. Suit was contested and written statement was filed by present petitioner-defendant no.1 and however, before trial could commence and even before framing of issues, two of the plaintiffs, namely, Ram Dutt and Ram Phal withdrew their claims. Thereafter, the present application for amendment of the plaint has been filed by present respondent no.1-plaintiff claiming that he is having right to pre-empt the entire property if other tenants Ram Dutt and Ram Phal do not want to press their claims, which was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. Only point contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant no.1 is that once respondent no.1-plaintiff has claimed tenancy over a part of the property purchased by the present petitioner, he is having no right to pre-empt the entire sale. However, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that this point is not to be decided at this stage and the same would be gone into 2 CR No.1099 of 2011 at the appropriate stage. Amendment is only regarding taking account of subsequent events even before commencement of trial. 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 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 ) November 17, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3