High Court dismissed a civil revision petition seeking to set aside an order closing the petitioner-defendant's evidence, holding no grave injustice occurred and noting supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used for re-appreciation of evidence.
Application dismissed being devoid of any merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Civil Revision No.5439 of 2011(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.5439 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2011
Jarnail Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
Bachan Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.D.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
C.M.No.21635-CII of 2011
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Civil Revision No.5439 of 2011
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 1.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Nabha, vide which evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed.
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 present suit pertains to the year 2004. Two of the respondents-plaintiffs were 75 and 80 years of the age at the time of filing of the suit. It has been mentioned by learned trial Court in the impugned order that numerous opportunities including last opportunity were availed by petitioner-
Civil Revision No.5439 of 2011(O&M) -2-
defendant and when no other evidence was adduced, impugned order was passed closing his evidence. Even in the revision petition it has not been mentioned that numerous opportunities were not granted to petitionerdefendant. Moreover, copies of zimni orders have not been attached with this revision petition.
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.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
6.9.2011 meenu
Civil Revision No.5439 of 2011(O&M) -3-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised to correct mere errors of fact or drawing inferences like a court of appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and othersRelied on¶23
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jarnail Singh
Bachan Singh and others
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
