Civil Revision No.4791 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4791 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 9, 2011 Om Parkash and another .....Petitioners v. Ramesh Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vinod Kataria, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.7.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which request of respondent-plaintiff to deposit the cost, which was imposed vide order dated 11.5.2009 and which was not paid by him on 2.9.2009, i.e., the next date fixed, was allowed to be deposited. 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that learned trial Court has committed illegality in allowing respondent-plaintiff to deposit the cost at the stage when the case was fixed for evidence of petitioners-defendants and when their two witnesses were already examined. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Manohar Singh v. D.S.Sharma and another, 2009 Civil Revision No.4791 of 2011(O&M) -2- (3) S.L.J. (S.C.) 1956. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that suit for permanent injunction restraining present petitioners-defendants from interfering into the possession of the respondent-plaintiff in the property in dispute was filed by respondent-plaintiff, which was contested by petitioners-defendants. Issues were framed. Case was fixed for evidence of respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff appeared and faced cross- examination. However, the case was adjourned for 2.9.2009 directing the respondent-plaintiff to produce his evidence subject to payment of `500/- as cost, and when the cost was not paid on 2.9.2009, his evidence was closed and the case was fixed for evidence of petitioners-defendants. However, when the case was fixed for evidence of petitioners-defendants, request was made on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff for allowing him to pay the cost and to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioners-defendants. Learned trial Court also relied upon Manohar Singh's case (supra), and in its discretion granted time to respondent-plaintiff to deposit the cost and allowed the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioners-defendants. Even in Manohar Singh's case (supra) learned Apex Court held that the Courts in its discretion is having power to extend time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for depositing the cost. Moreover in this case respondent-plaintiff has not prayed for restoring the status of the case as on 2.9.2009. He has not prayed for leading any evidence. His only prayer is that he be permitted to cross- examine the witnesses of petitioners-defendants on payment of cost. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court Civil Revision No.4791 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 9.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge