Civil Revision No.62 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.62 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 6, 2011 Daya Nand .....Petitioner v. Brahama Nand and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.270-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.62 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 4.12.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhajjar, vide which application filed by petitioner for leading additional evidence was dismissed. 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 vide which application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for leading additional evidence was dismissed. Briefly stated the present suit has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for challenging sale deed No.2532 dated 17.8.2004, which was executed by brother of present petitioner in favour of respondent-defendant no.2. The evidence of petitioner-plaintiff already closed in affirmative and the case is fixed for evidence of defendants. By way of additional evidence, petitioner-plaintiff intends to place on record agreement to sell dated 28.7.2004, which was executed by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.2 before executing the sale-deed. It has been rightly observed by Civil Revision No.62 of 2011 (O&M) -2- learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhajjar, that the agreement was already in existence before filing of the present suit and at the time when the evidence was being led by the petitioner-plaintiff. Moreover when sale-deed has already been executed in pursuant to agreement and that sale-deed has been challenged, it cannot be said that agreement is essential for deciding the controversy in dispute. 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 of 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. In my view it is not such a case in which grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned by passing the impugned order by learned trial Court, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. 6.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge