Civil Revision No.4661 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4661 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 4, 2011 Gurbax Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Pirthi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.18496-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4661 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 9.5.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, Annexure P4, vide which application filed by LRs of Amar Singh for impleading them as party after death of Amar Singh, was allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. There is no dispute that Amar Singh has since expired. According to counsel for the petitioners Amar Singh was brought on the record alongwith some other persons after death of Kesho @ Kesro- defendant for the purpose of decision of present litigation. Civil Revision No.4661 of 2011(O&M) -2- There is also no dispute that Amar Singh has since expired and that applicants which have been now impleaded are LRs of Amar Singh. Hence, merely on the ground that other persons are also contesting the case, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court by impleading the LRs of Amar Singh as a party in this suit 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. 4.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge