JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - C.M.No.19078-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4789 of 2011 2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 4.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which application filed by present petitioner-defendant for not allowing PW-5-Gurmail Singh to be again examined as a witness by respondents no.3 to 5-defendants, was dismissed. 3. 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. 4. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that suit for possession as owner of the land in dispute was filed by respondents no.1-2-plaintiffs against present petitioner and respondents no.3 to 5-defendants. Evidence of plaintiffs was recorded in which they examined an official from the office of respondents no.3 to 5-defendants, i.e. PW5-Gurmail Singh, as a witness. Evidence of plaintiffs was closed and however, when the case was fixed for evidence of respondents no.3 to 5-defendants, they intended to examine the said witness alongwith the official record, which was objected to by present petitioner-defendant and hence, he filed an application requesting the Court that he should not be examined again, which request was declined. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner defendant that only Court is having power to recall any witness and that once a witness has been examined and cross-examined, the other party cannot call him again as a witness. However, there is no law debarring such a witness to be examined again by that party. He is an official witness. He is to be examined by respondents no.3 to 5-defendants alongwith official record. Respondents no.3 to 5-defendants have right to adduce the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the respondents-plaintiffs. Respondents-plaintiffs are having no objection if the witness is examined again. Petitioner is only a co-defendant. He will have a right to further cross-examine this witness, if any new point comes in his deposition. 6. Respondents no.3 to 5-defendants have right to adduce the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the respondents-plaintiffs. Respondents-plaintiffs are having no objection if the witness is examined again. Petitioner is only a co-defendant. He will have a right to further cross-examine this witness, if any new point comes in his deposition. 6. 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. 7. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, [2003(3) All India Land Laws Reporter 334] : 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.” 8. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ----------0BSK0----------