Civil Revision No.5669 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5669 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2011 Satbir Gotam .....Petitioner v. Narender Nadda and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.22609 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5669 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 6.9.2011 and 10.9.2011, Annexures P7 and P8, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide which application for additional evidence filed by petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments and for payment of cost. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession was filed by present petitioner on the plea that he had purchased the property in dispute vide sale deed No.3353 dated Civil Revision No.5669 of 2011(O&M) -2- 23.10.2003. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants. Issues were framed. Many opportunities were availed by petitioner-plaintiff to adduce evidence and thereafter evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was closed vide order of the Court. Thereafter evidence was concluded by respondents- defendants. Case was fixed for arguments, when the present application for additional evidence was filed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that the witness now sought to be examined could not be examined earlier due to negligence of the counsel and that petitioner has now changed his counsel and, however, the witness is necessary as he is an attesting witness of the sale deed. Learned trial Court did not accede to the request of the petitioner-plaintiff by observing that after deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure by amending Act of 2002, the parties can pray for additional evidence if they are able to show that they could not produce evidence inspite of due diligence or that the same was not in their knowledge earlier when the evidence was being led. It has also been so held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate's Bar Association v. Union of India 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530, relevant paragraph of which reads as under:- “14..... On a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just.” However in this case it cannot be said that evidence was not in the knowledge of petitioner-plaintiff or that the same could not be adduced Civil Revision No.5669 of 2011(O&M) -3- after due diligence when the evidence was being led by him. Alleged negligence on the part of the Lawyer cannot be said to be a sufficient ground for allowing the application for additional evidence at rebuttal stage and hence, 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. 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.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 16.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge