Civil Revision No.4785 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4785 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 9, 2011 Gurdial Singh .....Petitioner v. Amarjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.19059-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4785 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.7.2011, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jalandhar, vide which application filed by petitioner for allowing him to cross-examine respondent no.1, was dismissed. 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 suit was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff no.1 alongwith his brother Davinder Pal Singh, plaintiff no.2, through the same counsel, Mr.I.S.Bhatia, though later on some other counsel was engaged by the present petitioner. Civil Revision No.4785 of 2011(O&M) -2- However, there is no conflict of interest so far as present petitioner-plaintiff no.1 and his brother-plaintiff no.2 is concerned. Statement of DW1 was recorded on 5.12.2008 and he was cross-examined by one of the counsel. However, he was not cross-examined by another counsel appointed by present petitioner-plaintiff no.1. The present application was filed for recalling the said witness for further cross-examination by another counsel appointed by present petitioner-plaintiff no.1on 29.4.2011. Evidence of defendant was closed on 20.2.2009. Hence, the application was filed after more than two years of recording of statement of DW1. 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.” Civil Revision No.4785 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge