Civil Revision No.6062 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6062 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 3, 2011 Manjit Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Iqbal Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.24157-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6062 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 25.8.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Batala, vide which application filed by respondents-defendants for tendering additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of respondent-defendant Navdeep Singh, who has already tendered affidavit of his examination-in-chief while appearing in witness box as DW9 was allowed. 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 respondent-defendant- Navdeep Singh already appeared in the witness box as DW9 and tendered his affidavit regarding his examination-in-chief. Civil Revision No.6062 of 2011(O&M) -2- However, his cross-examination was deferred and he has not been cross- examined so far. In the meantime, other witnesses were allowed to be examined by learned trial Court. Before his cross-examination could be conducted on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs, he filed present application for filing additional affidavit of his examination-in-chief, which was allowed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs that provision of Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') cannot be used for filling up lacuna of the case of a party and that when examination of a witness has been completed he cannot be recalled for further examination just to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness. He has also placed reliance upon Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) through LRs v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 0553. However perusal of the aforementioned judgment shows that in that case examination and cross-examination of the witness was already completed and thereafter an application was filed for recalling of the witness under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code, which was not allowed by Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in the present case, the witness has not been cross-examined so far. Learned trial Court in its discretion allowed respondents-defendants to examine other witnesses before beginning the cross-examination of respondent-defendant DW9 and it seems that no objection was raised on behalf of the respondents-defendants when other witnesses were examined without cross-examining DW9. Hence, in view of the fact that cross-examination of respondent-defendant Navdeep Singh DW9 has not yet begun, it cannot be Civil Revision No.6062 of 2011(O&M) -3- said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in allowing respondent-defendant DW9 to file additional affidavit of his examination-in-chief. Petitioners-plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness on all the points raised in the examination- in-chief including the additional affidavit. 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 or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, 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 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. 3.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge