Civil Revision No.1644 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1644 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 9, 2011 Sewa Singh and others .....Petitioners v. Kamaljit Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6611-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1644 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.2.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Civil Suit No.111 RBT of 3.5.2010, vide which application filed by petitioners for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for damages was filed by petitioners-plaintiffs against respondent-defendant on 9.9.2006 on the plea that previous suit dated 15.2.2003 filed by defendant for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioners-plaintiffs from constructing/running a poultry farm in the property in dispute of the said suit was without any basis and that the said suit was contested by present petitioners-plaintiffs and the same was dismissed on 31.5.2005. Appeal was also filed by respondent-defendant against the said order, which was also dismissed on 10.11.2005 and hence, a Civil Revision No.1644 of 2011(O&M) -2- sum of `2,12,570.00 was claimed as damages in the present suit. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant. Issues were framed. Both the parties led evidence, when the present application for additional evidence has been filed by petitioners-plaintiffs, which was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing as under:- “ Heard on the application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiffs. Through the application, the plaintiffs by way of additional evidence seek to bring on record jamabandies for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, certified copy of the report of local commissioner dated 24.2.2003, certified copy of the report of local commissioner dated 22.2.2003 and copy of RC of tractor. A perusal of the file shows that evidence has already been led by both the parties. The proceedings have been concluded and the case is pending for final arguments. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of damages against the defendant on account of civil suit filed by the defendant. The present suit was filed in the year 2006 and the plaintiffs concluded their evidence in the year 2010. The documents sought to be brought on record were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It has not been stated that as to how the said evidence would be necessary for adjudication of the matter regarding the loss suffered by the plaintiffs on account of the filing of the civil litigation by the defendant. The application being without merit is dismissed. To come up on 28.2.2011 for arguments.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs that he does not want to press his prayer for producing jamabandies and, however, he be allowed to file certified copies of the reports of local Commissioner, dated 24.2.2003 and 22.2.2003. However, he has failed to satisfy this Court as to why the same have not been filed when he was leading his evidence. The said reports were in the knowledge of the petitioners-plaintiffs. The reports were tendered in the previous suit, in which present petitioners-plaintiffs were parties. Law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Civil Revision No.1644 of 2011(O&M) -3- Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 that even after deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional evidence can be allowed only if plaintiff is able to show that the documents were not in his knowledge and that he could not produce the same at the time evidence was being led, despite due diligence. However, case of present petitioners-plaintiffs is not covered under any of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association's case (supra). Even perusal of application filed by petitioners-plaintiffs shows that they have failed to make out a case as to how the report of local commissioners are material for the decision of present suit for damages filed by petitioners-plaintiffs. In view of the aforementioned discussion, 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. 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 on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge