Civil Revision No.5823 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5823 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 26, 2011 Balwinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Punjab Urban Development Authority and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.23262-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5823 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.8.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which application for additional evidence filed by petitioner-plaintiff for summoning a witness alongwith the record 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 trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of land in dispute with a relief of mandatory injunction directing respondents-defendants-PUDA to remove the alleged illegal construction after demolishing the same. During pendency of the suit it was alleged that Civil Revision No.5823 of 2011(O&M) -2- the property in dispute was auctioned by respondents and hence by way of amendment relief for grant of compensation was sought. The suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. Case was fixed for arguments when an application was filed by respondents-defendants for framing legal issues as to whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and as to whether jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and try the suit is barred under Section 174 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. These objections were already taken in the written statement by respondents- defendants. Hence, the said issues were framed. An application was filed by petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence on the plea that evidence is required to prove the said issues, which request was declined by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that as additional issues have been framed by learned trial Court hence, opportunity should have been granted to petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence after framing of additional issues. He has also placed reliance upon Smt.Geeta Chopra @ Sangita v. Madan Lal and others, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 762; Perikal Malappa v. T.Venkatesh Gupta 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 252 and Ranbir Singh and others v. Tara Chand and others 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 92. However, the plea cannot be accepted. Perusal of aforementioned judgments shows that additional issues framed in those cases were such in which evidence was required to prove the said issues. However, additional issue framed in the present case are purely legal in Civil Revision No.5823 of 2011(O&M) -3- nature. No evidence is required to be produced in order to prove the said issues. No evidence was also adduced by respondents-defendants after framing of the said issues. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that issues are purely questions of law and that the issue regarding court fee is to be decided on the basis of averments made in the plaint. 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. 26.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.5823 of 2011(O&M) -4-