Civil Revision No.5347 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5347 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011 Chandu Lal .....Petitioner v. Bhagwan Dass and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Bahadur Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 16.5.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gurgaon, vide which application filed by respondents-plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence 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. Briefly stated, present suit has been filed by respondent- plaintiff since deceased and now represented by respondents no.1 and 2 for a decree for possession on the basis of title. Present application has been filed by respondents-plaintiffs for permission to lead secondary evidence of a registered sale deed bearing Vasika No.1323 dated 19.6.1979 on the plea that original has been misplaced somewhere, which was contested by present petitioner-defendant and however, the same was allowed by learned Civil Revision No.5347 of 2011(O&M) -2- trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that respondents-plaintiffs have failed to show that the original has been lost and hence, learned trial Court has committed illegality in permitting respondents-plaintiffs to adduce secondary evidence. On the point he has placed reliance upon Rambhau Sadashivappa Jatkar v. Tryambak Shenfal Satbharkre, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 236, Gopal Singh v. Shish Pal and others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 79, and Smt.Prem Lala v. Smt.Kamla Devi and others, 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 227. Facts of the present case are that the suit was initially filed by Smt.Maya Devi, widow of Sh.Duli Chand, on the basis of sale deed bearing Vasika No.1323, dated 19.6.1979. She died during pendency of the suit. Suit is being contested by her sons, i.e., present respondents-plaintiffs, the legal representatives of Smt.Maya Devi. They have taken a specific plea that the original sale deed was misplaced and despite best efforts, the same is not traceable. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that respondents- plaintiffs have not shown that original sale deed has been lost. However, they have already placed on record certified copy of the sale deed. The sale deed is a registered document. The counter part of the same is maintained in the office of Sub Registrar, Gurgaon. Hence, it cannot be said that the same is a fabricated one. It has also been observed by learned trial Court while passing the impugned order that the question whether the sale deed bears signature of Maya Devi or Chandu Lal is yet to be proved by leading evidence by both the parties. Facts of the authorities on which reliance has been placed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. Civil Revision No.5347 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge