Civil Revision No.1240 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1240 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 23, 2011 Paramjit .....Petitioner v. Rajesh Nath and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.1.2011, vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff for producing additional evidence has been 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. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff no.3 alongwith other plaintiffs, i.e., respondent nos.2 to 4 against respondent no.1-defendant. Suit was contested by respondent- defendant. Issues were framed. Evidence of both the parties was concluded and the case was fixed for arguments when the present application for additional evidence was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff no.3, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order, which reads as under:- “Arguments on application for additional evidence heard. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant wants to tender Nehri Girdawaries which could not be produced at the time of evidence. On the other hand, prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the Civil Revision No.1240 of 2011(O&M) -2- defendant/respondent stating that the Nehri Girdawaries cannot over lead the Khasra Girdwaries, therefore, the same could not be allowed to be produced. In the present case, the present application was moved at the stage of rebuttal evidence. No explanation has been given by learned counsel for the applicant as to why these documents could not be produced at the time of evidence of applicant. Further, the record of Khasra Girdwari is already on file and as such Nehri Girdawari cannot be said to be much relevance as they cannot over ride the khasra girdawri or the other revenue record. Therefore, neither the proposed documents seems to be material at such a belated stage. Hence, the present application is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed. Now to come up on 2.2.2011 for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the documents now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, i.e., copies of Nehri girdawaries, were in the knowledge of petitioner-plaintiff and however, the same could not be tendered in evidence due to negligence of counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff as the same was lying in his brief. It is further contended that the documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. However, law is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 that even after deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional evidence can be allowed if it is shown that evidence was not in the knowledge of the party, or that the evidence could not be produced after due diligence. However, case of present petitioner is not covered by any of the said parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid authority. Moreover, 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 by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent Civil Revision No.1240 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. The present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 23.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge