Civil Revision No.5795 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5795 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Jagtar Singh .....Petitioner v. Kashmir Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.23158-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5795 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 23.8.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal') vide which request of petitioner-claimant to adjourn the claim petition sine die was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petition was filed on 23.12.2009 and is still pending for evidence of petitioner-claimant. Petitioner-claimant moved an application for getting the claim petition adjourned sine die on the plea that disability of claimant is yet to be assessed by competent medical board. However, it has been Civil Revision No.5795 of 2011(O&M) -2- rightly observed by learned Tribunal that petition filed by petitioner cannot be adjourned sine die on this ground. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal 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. 22.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge