IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7608 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:22.11.2010 Kabul Singh ....Petitioner versus Balbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is filed by the defendant challenging the order passed in an application filed by the plaintiff seeking for permission to adduce further evidence and a document relating to a revenue entry which was already filed but in respect of which evidence had not been given. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an opportunity ought not to have been granted, for, the case had been pending for a long period and the plaintiff had availed to himself adequate opportunity to let in evidence and he cannot reopen the case for fresh evidence again at a belated stage. 2. It is a recurrent theme in revisional jurisdiction that interim orders ought not to have been passed in the manner that they are passed and discretion ought not to have been exercised the way it is exercised. We will be subverting law if we enlarge jurisdiction for revision and substitute every petition that is otherwise not maintainable under Section Civil Revision No.7608 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - 115 to be taken as a revision under Article 227. A revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 will be available only to correct illegalities and errors of jurisdiction and will leave no scope for interference with exercise of power of judicial discretion of a trial Court. The trial Court has itself found reasons to allow the application and has imposed cost of Rs.500/- for taking up the application. There is no illegality to subject the impugned order under a scanner for intervention under Article 227. 3. The revision is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 22.11.2010 sanjeev