Civil Revision No.34 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.34 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 5, 2011 Raj Paul Kansal .....Petitioner v. Mohd. Yaseen .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Petitioner in person. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for modification of order dated 14.10.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, Annexure P3. I have heard the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, vide which suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, which was dismissed in default on 8.10.2009, was restored at its original number subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost to be paid by the present petitioner-plaintiff to the defendant. It has been contended by the petitioner that the order passed by learned trial Court ordering him to pay cost of Rs.5000/- is an excessive one and hence the same may be modified. Law is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere only if there is some error manifest 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. However, in the present case no such ground is available to the Civil Revision No.34 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned trial Court in its discretion restored the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, which was dismissed in default subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as cost. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. The present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge