Dalbir and others vs Surajmal and others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 18.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide which application filed by petitioners for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

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.

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute as per jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed. Evidence has been adduced by both the parties when the present application for additional evidence has been filed.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that witness sought to be examined is a material witness, who had conducted demarcation of the property in dispute before filing of the suit and that though he was summoned when evidence was being adduced by petitioners-plaintiffs and, however, he could not be examined and the evidence of the petitioners was closed.

Perusal of the file shows that sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioners-plaintiffs by learned trial Court to adduce evidence and, thereafter, evidence of petitioners-plaintiffs was closed. The said order vide which evidence of petitiones-plaintiffs was closed has not been challenged by the petitioners and the order has become final. Thereafter evidence of respondents-defendants was also concluded.

Law has been well settled by Hon''ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 2005 (3) RCR (Civil) 530 that even after deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional evidence can be allowed u/s 151 of the CPC only if party is able to show that the documents were not in its knowledge and that it could not produce the same at the time evidence was being led, despite due diligence.

However, the case of the petitioner is not covered under any of the said grounds mentioned by Hon''ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association''s case (supra).

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 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 Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, , 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.