Civil Revision No.5991 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5991 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Niranjan Singh .....Petitioner v. Sub Divisional Officer and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.23834-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5991 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 22.6.2011, Annexure P3, passed by respondent no.1 vide which respondent no.1 has directed the petitioner to return the amount of `81911/-. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Nuh. Briefly stated petitioner had taken a loan from respondent- bank. As per case of respondent-bank the loan was not returned by the petitioner hence, it filed an application under Section 8(A) of Haryana Agricultural Credit Operations & Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') before the Collector, i.e., Sub Civil Revision No.5991 of 2011(O&M) -2- Division Magistrate (Civil) Nuh. On notice being issued present petitioner- respondent filed written statement, Annexure P2. Perusal of written statement shows that factum of taking loan has not been specifically denied. Rather plea has been taken that all the dues have already been cleared by the present petitioner without giving any detail as to how and in which manner the dues were cleared. No other plea was taken in the written statement. Even no evidence regarding alleged payment was adduced before the Collector and hence the impugned order was passed by the Collector under the Act. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount was returned by petitioner and the mortgage deed was torn by the concerned Manager of the bank in the presence of petitioner. However, no such plea was taken by the petitioner in the written statement filed as Annexure P2. It is further contended that even mortgage deed was not placed on record when it was specifically asked by the Collector. However, no such plea has been taken in the present revision petition even and hence, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the Collector. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Collector 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 Civil Revision No.5991 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 28.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge