Civil Revision No.7092 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7092 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Amandeep Kaur .....Petitioner v. Rajpal Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.27567-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.7092 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.4.2011, Anenxure P1, vide which evidence of petitioner was closed by order of the Court. 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a petition for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court on which evidence was being adduced by the petitioner. However, perusal of various zimni orders passed by learned trial Court, Annexure P2, shows that the present petition was filed in the year 2005 and, Civil Revision No.7092 of 2011(O&M) -2- however, even after about six years, petitioner could not conclude her evidence. So many opportunities were granted by learned trial Court. When evidence could not be concluded, despite last opportunity, the impugned order was passed. 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.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 22.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge