CR No.4817 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4817 of 2010 Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Miss Lalita ...Petitioner Versus Mahipal Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RPS Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 20.7.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ambala vide which application for leading additional evidence filed by the petitioner-defendant to produce Handwriting Expert and for summoning of other witnesses was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that suit for specific performance of land duly described in the heading of the plaint was filed by respondent-plaintff against the present petitioner-defendant on the basis of agreement to sell dated 7.10.1999 on CR No.4817 of 2010 2 payment of balance sale consideration of ` 98,125/- with a consequential release of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienation, transferring or encumbering upon in any manner of the suit land. The suit was contested by present petitioner-defendant. Issues were framed by learned trial court. Evidence of both the parties was concluded when the present application for additional evidence was filed, which has been declined by learned trial court vide impugned order dated 20.7.2010, which reads as under: “Arguments heard on application of even date filed by defendant-applicant Smt.Asha Rani for leading additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC. File perused from which it reveals that defendant/applicant Asha Rani after availing several effective opportunities more than 3 for her evidence, closed her evidence on 11.6.2010 vide separate statement and accordingly, this case was posted for today for rebuttal evidence and argument but now Asha Rani has filed the aforesaid application stating therein that her Advocate had inadvertently closed her evidence, whereas defendant had already filed an application for summoning of witnesses and also filed an application for examination of the signatures of Late Sh.Gulshan on the alleged agreement by Smt.Gurmeet Kaur, Handwriting Export and the said application has also been allowed and CR No.4817 of 2010 3 accordingly, the aforesaid witnesses are required to be examined in additional evidence but in this application she has not mentioned the date of order vide which application filed by her had been allowed by the court where this case was pending. No copy of that order is annexed herewith. The contents of this application are not supported by any affidavit. Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was already been deleted from the text book. Therefore, in such circumstances, the application in hand seems to have been filed for causing delay in this old case which pertains to the year 2001 and reasons being so it has fallen within 100 oldest Civil cases targeted for Action Plan 2010 but on one pretext or the other applicant/defendant wants to cause delay. Resultantly, having found this application devoid of merits, I dismiss it with costs Rs.100/-. To come up on 23.7.2010 for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments.” Law is well settled that application for additional evidence under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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. Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate's Bar Association vs. Union of India 2005(3) RCR (Civil), 530 observed as under :- CR No.4817 of 2010 4 “14. ... On a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just.” As is shown from the aforementioned order passed by learned trial Court, petitioner-defendant had already availed several opportunities and her evidence was closed as per statement of her counsel. The suit pertains to the year 2007 and the same is at final stage. The evidence which is sought to be produced was in the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant and nothing has been shown to this Court as to why the evidence was not adduced despite several opportunities availed by the petitioner-defendant. Hence, in view of 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 grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil), 147 by Hon'ble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This court can interfere only when 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. CR No.4817 of 2010 5 There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. February 9, 2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE