Civil Revision No.1427 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1427 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 1, 2011 Gurdev Singh .....Petitioner v. Mela Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.M.K.Singla, 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 16.2.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangrur, vide which learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner by order. 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 on the request of present petitioner, he was transposed as plaintiff in the pending suit before learned trial Court. Suit was contested by respondent- defendant. Issues were framed on 21.8.2006 and the case was fixed for evidence of petitioner-plaintiffs. After taking several opportunities for evidence and after leading some evidence, an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') was filed by petitioner-plaintiffs, which was also dismissed by learned trial Court vide order dated 27.8.2010 and last opportunity was given to them to conclude their evidence for 12.12.2010. On 12.12.2010, evidence was not concluded and, however, in the interest of justice, another last opportunity was given by learned trial court to Civil Revision No.1427 of 2011(O&M) -2- petitioner-plaintiffs to conclude evidence for 16.2.2011. On 16.2.2011 as well, when no evidence was present, impugned order was passed, which reads as under:- “ No PW is present despite last opportunity. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs requested for an adjournment. Perusal of file reveals that in the present case, issues were framed on 11.6.2006 and the plaintiffs have availed several opportunities to conclude their evidence. But they have failed to conclude their evidence despite last opportunity. Hence, no ground is made out to grant further adjournment for the same purpose. Accordingly, the evidence of the plaintiffs is closed by order. Now to come up on 16.3.2011 for defendants evidence.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiffs that their evidence was present on 16.2.2011 and, however, the same could not be recorded as their counsel was busy in another court. However, the said plea is not in accordance with the order passed by learned trial Court. Perusal of the order passed by learned trial Court shows that the same was passed in the presence of counsel for both the parties and no such plea was taken before learned trial Court by counsel for the petitioner- plaintiffs. 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 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 that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Civil Revision No.1427 of 2011(O&M) -3- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge