IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1363 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2011. Suraj Bhan. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus The Shahabad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside impugned order dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, that respondent no.1-plaintiff filed suit for recovery against present petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3. The suit was CR No.1363 of 2011 decreed vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2006 by learned trial Court. Present petitioner did not file appeal against the said judgment and decree. Appeal was filed by only one of the defendants, namely, M/s Saraswati Sugar Company i.e. present respondent no.2. However, during pendency of the appeal some compromise was arrived between appellant and respondent no.1-plaintiff and in view of the said compromise, the appeal was withdrawn by appellant vide impugned order dated 25.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The present revision petition has been filed by the present petitioner aggrieved against the said order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not heard before passing of the said order. However, the plea cannot be accepted as present petitioner was respondent no.3 before the appellate Court and was duly represented by his counsel, Shri D.K.Sharma, Advocate as is clear from the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned first appellate 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 2 CR No.1363 of 2011 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 ) September 14, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3