Civil Revision No.2350 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2350 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 6, 2011 M/s Lahoria Ceramics Pvt.Limited .....Petitioner v. Narender Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9537-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2350 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 16.2.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar, vide which learned trial Court did not allow the petitioner-defendant no.3 to cross-examine the witness of respondent no.1-plaintiff. 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 24.10.2006, allegedly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiff in respect of land, duly described in the heading of the plaint, was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against respondents no.2 and 3 and present petitioner directing defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in his favour with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants no.1 and 2 from Civil Revision No.2350 of 2011(O&M) -2- selling, alienating, transferring the land in dispute to anybody else. Separate written statements have been filed by all the three defendants. Suit is being contested by main defendants no.1 and 2. Present petitioner-defendant no.3 has filed admitted written statement, Annexure P2. Witnesses of respondent-plaintiff were examined. PW-Hoshiar Singh was examined and cross-examined on behalf of the contesting respondents- defendants, when a prayer was made on behalf of the present petitioner granting him as well the permission to cross-examine the said witness, which was declined by learned trial Court by passing the impugned order, which reads as under:- “ Patwari Hoshiar Singh, PW has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defendant no.2. Shri Pritam Singh, Advocate, for defendant no.3 has also desired to cross- examine Hoshiar Singh Patwari but learned counsel for the defendant no.3 has already filed written statement which is admitted written statement, i.e., he has admitted the claim of the plaintiff, thus the defendant no.3 is not in clash with the plaintiff, if he is not in clash with the plaintiff then he has no right to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner-defendant no.3 has not entirely admitted the case of respondent- plaintiff. However, there is no force in the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant no.3, as a careful perusal of plaint and written statement filed by petitioner-defendant no.3 shows that present petitioner has entirely admitted the case of respondent-plaintiff and there is no contest between both of them. Hence, when there is no contest between petitioner-defendant no.3 and respondent-plaintiff, it cannot be said that he is having any right to cross-examine the witness examined by respondent- plaintiff after the witness has been cross-examined by the contesting respondents-defendants. 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. Civil Revision No.2350 of 2011(O&M) -3- Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court 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. 6.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge