Civil Revision No.5802 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5802 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Tej Ram @ Tej Pal .....Petitioner v. Smt.Tara Wati and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjay Vij, 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 setting aside order dated 12.3.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, vide which application for amendment of written statement filed by respondent-defendant no.2 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 are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction by taking the plea that a cheque was stolen by his wife, i.e., respondent no.1 and on the basis of stolen cheque, amount was withdrawn from respondent no.2-Bank. On notice being issued respondent-defendant no.2 filed the Civil Revision No.5802 of 2011(O&M) -2- written statement by taking the plea that cheque was a bearer cheque. However, before trial could commence, an application was filed by respondent-defendant no.2-Bank on the plea that there was some typographical error in mentioning the word bearer cheque, whereas it should have been a cheque. Hence, amendment sought by respondent-defendant no.2-Bank is in the nature of explanation only and as per the record of the bank, which cannot be forged or manipulated. Trial has not commenced. 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 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.” Civil Revision No.5802 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 22.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge