Civil Revision No.1253 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1253 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 24, 2011 Amritpal Singh .....Petitioner v. Narinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5127-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just objections. Civil Revision No.1253 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.1.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Fatehgarh Sahib. 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 recovery of Rs.1,76,228.80 P was filed by respondent- plaintiff against present petitioner-defendant, on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 20.1.2005. The pronote and receipt were also attached with the plaint and they were also produced in the evidence. However, in the heading of the plaint, due to typographical mistake, the date of execution of pronote and receipt has been mentioned as 20.1.2007. The mistake came to the notice of counsel for respondent-plaintiff at the time of arguments and he filed an application for correcting the said typographical mistake, which was allowed by learned trial Court, vide impugned order which reads as Civil Revision No.1253 of 2011(O&M) -2- under:- “Heard on the application u/O 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint. By the way of amendment the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff only wants to substitute the date 20.1.2005 in place of 20.1.2007. The proposed amendment is of clerical in nature only as the original pronote is placed on record which is dated 20.1.2005. The present application is allowed subject to Rs.500/- as costs. Amended plaint has already been placed on record. Now to come up on 1.2.2011 for filing of amended written statement.” Hence, in view of these facts, the plaint is to be read as a whole and when in the main body of the plaint the date of pronote and receipt has been mentioned as 20.1.2005 and when even no objection was taken in the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-defendant in this regard and rather in reply to para no.2, a very execution of pronote and receipt has been denied, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in allowing the typographical mistake of pronote and receipt in the heading of the plaint corrected 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 24.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.1253 of 2011(O&M) -3-