CR No. 1396 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1396 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Harpal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Nirmal Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.AK Sama, Advocate for the petitioners *** 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 25.10.2010 passed by learned trial court closing evidence of the petitioners-defendants and subsequent order dated 7.2.2011 passed by learned trial court declining the application of the petitioners-defendants for grant of permission to petitioners-defendants to examine the witnesses. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned trial court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners-defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the petitioner-defendants. Issues CR No. 1396 of 2011 (O&M) 2 were framed. Evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. Sufficient opportunities were also given to petitioners-defendants to lead their evidence. However, no other witness was produced and evidence of the petitioners-defendants was closed vide impugned order dated 25.10.2010, which reads as under: “DW Harpal Singh is present & examined. No other witness of the defendant is present today. The defendant Harpal Singh along with his counsel prayed for adjournment citing unavoidable circumstances for not concluding the evidence today. However, perusal of the file reveals that on the previous occasion Sh.U.K.Kukar, Advocate given specific undertaking that he conclude the evidence, failing which evidence shall be deemed to be closed. Therefore, there is no justification for grant of any further opportunity for this purpose. In these circumstances, evidence of the defendant is hereby closed by order. Now to come up on 16.11.2010 for evidence of the plaintiff in rebuttal and arguments.” Subsequently, another application was filed by petitioners- defendants for permission to examine some witnesses, which was also declined by learned trial court vide order dated 7.2.2011. Perusal of aforementioned order dated 25.10.2010 shows that many opportunities were granted to the petitioners-defendants to lead their CR No. 1396 of 2011 (O&M) 3 evidence by learned trial Court. The case was adjourned for that day as per the statement of counsel for the petitioners-defendants undertaking that he would conclude the evidence on the next date of hearing, failing which, the evidence be deemed to be concluded. Despite that no other witness of the defendant was present. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to convince this Court as to how illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial court in passing the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil), 147 by Hon'ble Apex Court 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 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. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. February 28, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE