IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2650 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2011. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Samsher Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana. None for respondent no.3. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 05.02.2010, Annexure P5 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Panipat vide which application filed by petitioner-defendant under CR No.2650 of 2010 Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘CPC’) for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, respondent no.1-plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he is entitled for employment in the office of defendants being land looser as per the policy of the Government prevalent at the time of acquisition of land belonging to father of respondent no.1-plaintiff. On notice being issued, present petitioner-defendant no.2 filed written statement contesting the suit as well as an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. In the application, Annexure P3 it has been averred that no such policy can be framed under the land acquisition Act and the compensation has already been paid as per the Act and that hence, plaint is liable to be rejected. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as there was no such policy in existence for providing employment to land looser. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.1 that there was a policy decision of respondent-Government for providing employment to land looser as per the policy decision dated 12.11.1992 and that hence, it cannot be said that plaint does not disclose any cause of action. It is a matter of evidence as to whether there was any such policy of the Government and as to whether present case is cover under the said 2 CR No.2650 of 2010 policy of the Government. However, at this stage it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in dismissing the application of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint, vide 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 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