IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 811 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2011. Major Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Ujjagar Singh. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S.Swaich, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 04.12.2010, Annexure P5 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib vide which application filed by present petitioner- plaintiff for filing the replication was declined. CR No.811 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for specific performance against the respondent on the basis of agreement to sell dated 31.05.2005 executed by defendant in favour of petitioner-plaintiff for sale of land in dispute. Written statement dated 28.11.2006 was filed by respondent-defendant denying the very execution of the said agreement by respondent-defendant in favour of petitioner-plaintiff. No request was made on behalf of present petitioner-plaintiff to the court for leave to file any subsequent pleadings. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. Case was at the stage for arguments when the present application was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff for permission to file replication, which was declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff that under Order 8 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure court is having power to allow any of the parties to file additional pleadings. He has also placed reliance upon Ghanshyam v. Vikram and others, 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 334 in which it was observed that plaintiff can be permitted to file replication with the permission of the court if the defendant has taken new factual pleas in the written statement. However, in that case the request for filing replication was made after filing of written statement and before framing of the issues. He has also placed reliance upon Yakub Ali v. Rubi and others, 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 129 wherein it was observed by coordinate Bench of this Court that 2 CR No.811 of 2011 amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC can be allowed if the pleading is sought to be included by way of clarification. He has also placed reliance upon Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 585, wherein while dealing with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement, it was observed that delay is no ground for refusal of prayer for amendment of written statement. The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the plea that it is not a right of the plaintiff to file replication at any stage without any basis and that if the plaintiff is allowed to file replication at this stage, it would amount to de-novo trial. It is pertinent to reproduce Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC, which reads as under:- 9. Subsequent pleadings. –No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same. A bare perusal of abovementioned provision shows that additional pleading subsequent to the written statement of defendant can be filed by plaintiff if defendant has taken plea of set-off or counter-claim. He is having no other right to file replication except in a case where court considers that a written statement or additional written statement is to be filed by any of the parties. In this case, it is not the case that the court requires any additional pleading to be filed by petitioner-plaintiff. The application filed by 3 CR No.811 of 2011 the petitioner-plaintiff for filing replication shows no ground whatsoever has been taken as to why additional pleading is necessary. So far as amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is concerned, the same reads as under:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” The aforesaid amended provision came for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 and it has been settled that no application for amendment is to be allowed after commencement of trial, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in dismissing the application of petitioner-plaintiff for filing the replication vide impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675: AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that supervisory jurisdiction is not 4 CR No.811 of 2011 available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 12, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 5