Civil Revision No.1082 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1082 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 16, 2011 Mehar Singh .....Petitioner v. Pritam Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.1.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malerkotla, vide which evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by order of the Court. 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 petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on 23.11.2006 against respondent-defendants restraining them from alienating the land more than their share to the extent of 5/21st share, out of joint land, fully described in the heading of the plaint. Suit was contested by respondent- defendants. Issues were framed on 6.12.2007. Thereafter many opportunities were availed by petitioner-plaintiff for evidence. An application was also filed by petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint, which was also allowed by learned trial Court. Thereafter, as well 2- 3 opportunities were granted to petitioner-plaintiff and when no evidence was adduced despite last opportunity, the impugned order was passed by Civil Revision No.1082 of 2011(O&M) -2- learned trial Court on 20.1.2011, which reads as under:- “ PW Mehar Singh examined completely. Today was the last opportunity for evidence of plaintiff. Issues were framed on 6.12.2007, therefore, evidence of plaintiff stand closed by order. At this stage, PW Gurmeet Singh appeared and has prayed for tendering his affidavit in evidence, though plaintiff evidence has been closed by order but this affidavit has been produced at once. Ld. counsel for the defendant has also shown no objection to it. Therefore, in the interest of justice, let it be tendered and at the request of counsel for defendant, his cross-examination is deferred for 23.3.2011. Now it is clear that case has been adjourned only for cross- examination of PW Gurmeet Singh and no further evidence is to be produced.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to when application for amendment was filed and which were the dates of hearing fixed in this case from 6.12.2007 to 20.9.2010. 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 and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 16.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.1082 of 2011(O&M) -3-