JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - C.M.No.27020-CII of 2011 1. In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 4.10.2011 dismissing the petition for nonprosecution is recalled. 2. Registry is directed to register the case at its original number. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.13612-CII of 2011 4. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3456 of 2011 5. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.11.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divisoin), Naraingarh, vide which application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) by respondent no.6- applicant for impleading him as a party in this suit was allowed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. 7. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that present appellant-plaintiff filed suit for possession of the premises in dispute with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from alienating, selling and raising any construction over the property in dispute. An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code was filed by respondent-applicant-Jagdish for impleading him as a party, which was allowed by learned trial Court. 8. The dispute is regarding property of Smt.Bachni Devi, mother of present petitioner-plaintiff and respondent-applicant-Jagdish. Present petitioner-plaintiff is claiming exclusive rights in the property in dispute on the basis of a decree suffered by Smt. Bachni Devi in his favour. However, in the earlier suit filed by Smt. Bachni Devi herself, the said decree was set aside by learned first appellate Court and, however, regular second appeal was filed before this Court, which is pending. Vide the said judgment and decree, respondent-applicant was declared owner of half share of entire property left by Smt. Bachni Devi. Now present suit has been filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff for possession concealing the said fact as has been observed by learned trial Court in the impugned order. Though the said litigation is still pending and, however, the present suit has been filed by present petitioner-plaintiff without impleading his brother Jagdish as a party and without disclosing the factum of previous litigation. Though the said litigation is still pending and, however, the present suit has been filed by present petitioner-plaintiff without impleading his brother Jagdish as a party and without disclosing the factum of previous litigation. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that he is a necessary party to be impleaded in this case being one of the legal representatives of Smt. Bachni Devi being her son. 9. 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. 10. 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.” 11. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. --------------