Civil Revision No.4707 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4707 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 9, 2011 Vijay Singh .....Petitioner v. Ram Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.18606-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4707 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 30.5.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which application, Annexure P1, filed by defendants- Ram Kumar and others for permission to serve interrogatories to present petitioner was allowed. 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 sale deed dated 29.4.2005 regarding part of property in dispute was executed and registered in favour of Vijay Singh, present petitioner, Parmal Chand and Rishi Pal alongwith others by Manga, Mehar Singh, Smt.Shanti, Civil Revision No.4707 of 2011(O&M) -2- Reshmi Devi, and Roshni Devi, i.e., some of the defendants. Interrogatories though submitted at a later stage is only to the effect that present petitioner and other plaintiffs in whose favour the sale deed has been executed have been asked to admit or deny the execution of the sale deed, which was allowed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that application was not filed at proper stage of the proceedings. However, even if it is correct, learned trial Court has exercised its discretion in allowing the application filed by respondents-defendants directing present petitioner-plaintiff to admit or deny the sale deed executed in their favour by some of the defendants regarding part of the property in dispute during pendency of the suit. 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 Civil Revision No.4707 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 9.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge