IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.368 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 16, 2011. Jiwni Devi ...... PETITIONER. Versus Amar Nath and others. ...... RESPONDENTS. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.1471-CII of 2011. The application is allowed subject to just exceptions. C.R. No.368 of 2011. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 11.04.2009 and 11.08.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal and learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal respectively. CR No.368 of 2011(O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for decree of permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner-defendant and proforma respondents-defendants from interfering in his possession. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’) for ad interim injunction order was also filed. The application was allowed by learned trial Court and the present petitioner-defendant and proforma respondents- defendants were restrained from dispossessing respondent No.1-plaintiff and interfering in his possession over the property in dispute. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. Admitted facts are that property in dispute was jointly owned by respondent No.1-plaintiff and the present appellant-defendant and proforma respondents-defendants. Partition order was passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Kalayat on 4.8.2005. Sanad Taqseem was prepared. Partition order was upheld upto Hon’ble Apex Court. When the revenue officials failed to deliver the possession of the land in dispute to respondent No.1-plaintiff as per Sanad Taqseem, he filed contempt petition before this Court and vide order dated 17.03.2008 of this Court, revenue officials were directed to deliver the possession of the land in dispute to respondent No.1-plaintiff and accordingly, the order of partition was implemented vide rapat No.356 dated 3.4.2008 and separate possession of the land in dispute was delivered to respondent No.1-plaintiff. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District 2 CR No.368 of 2011(O&M) Judge, Rohtak 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 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 ) November 16, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3