Civil Revision No.6002 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6002 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 29, 2011 Falku Singh .....Petitioner v. Gurmej Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. ........ RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.23910-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6002 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 12.8.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Fazilka vide which application filed by respondent-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') for amendment of the plaint was allowed. 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 is that a suit for recovery of `38,000/-, i.e., `20,000/- as principal amount and `18,000/- as interest on the basis of pronote and receipt was filed by respondent-plaintiff against the present petitioner-defendant. In the plaint, Civil Revision No.6002 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondent-plaintiff has described his name as Gurmej Singh. However, by way of amendment he has sought to amend his name as Gurmej Singh alias Gurmail Singh son of Shri Balveer Singh S/o of Shri Sohan Singh R/o Village Chak Garibba Sandhar Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur, which was allowed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial and that it was negligence on the part of respondent-plaintiff in not describing his name correctly. However, perusal of impugned order shows that it has come in evidence that respondent-plaintiff is also known by the name Gurmail Singh. There is no other person in the name of Gurmail Singh or Gurmej Singh s/o Balvir Singh s/o Shri Sohan Singh, in Village Chak Gariba Sandhar Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. Amendment is only to correct the typographical mistake. Same does not change the nature of the suit. Hence, it cannot be said that by allowing typographical mistake in writing name to be corrected by way of amendment any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. Learned trial Court while allowing this application also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mahabir Tin Words v. Sheel Seed Farm (Regd.) Sonawar Bagh, 2009 (4) Civil Court Cases 491 (Delhi) (DB). 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 Civil Revision No.6002 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 29.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge