IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7462 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2011. Balwant Rai and another. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Smt. Swarni and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S.Jagpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate for respondent No.3. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 03.12.2009, Annexure P2 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Jalandhar vide which application filed by petitioners-defendants No.8 and 10 for recalling DW1 to DW5 for the purpose of cross-examination, was dismissed. CR No.7462 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for declaration for permanent injunction was filed by respondents No.10 to 17-plaintiffs. Suit was contested by respondents- defendants No.1, 2 and 4 to 9. The present petitioners and respondent No.3 did not contest and rather they were proceeded ex parte. However, later, on their application, they were allowed to join the proceedings. The present suit has been filed by respondents No.10 to 17-plaintiffs for themselves as well as for the benefit of present petitioners. They were impleaded only as proforma defendants. There is no conflict of interest between plaintiffs and the present petitioners. Witnesses produced by contesting defendants were duly cross- examined by counsel for plaintiffs. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that the application filed on behalf of present petitioner is not a bonafide one and the same was filed just to delay the present suit. 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 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 2 CR No.7462 of 2009 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 ) August 10, 2011 JUDGE ‘om’ 3