Civil Revision No.2541 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2541 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2011 Vijay Kaur .....Petitioner v. Bhupender and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 13.4.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani, vide which application for additional evidence filed by petitioner has been dismissed. 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 was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against present petitioner and respondents no.2 to 4 for declaration that he is co-owner in possession of the land in dispute as per jamabandi for the year 2001-02 and that defendants including present petitioner are having no right to alienate the specific khasra number out of joint property without getting the same partitioned, by metes and bounds. Suit was contended by defendants. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by both the parties and when the case was fixed for arguments, the present application for additional evidence has been filed by present petitioner. Law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Civil Revision No.2541 of 2011(O&M) -2- Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530, that even after deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, additional evidence 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. Law is also well settled that additional evidence can be allowed if the same is necessary for the just decision of the case. Application was declined by learned trial Court by observing as under:- “ In the present case the averments of counsel for the applicant are that the plaintiff has not disclosed the fact that some suit property had already been acquired by the State. But even if the same is allowed to be brought on record that some property had already been purchased by the State and the fact was not disclosed by the plaintiff at the time of filing the present suit still the fact will remain same and the final outcome of the suit will not change as the question involved in the present suit is whether a co-sharer can sell any specific khasra number out of the joint property without getting the same partitioned. It is not the case of the applicant that the plaintiff has ceased to have any right, title or interest in the property. Hence, mere stating that some property was purchased by the State will not change the status as still the plaintiff will be having right in the suit property. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence wanted to be adduced by the applicant is not necessary for reaching on the just decision of the case. Accordingly, the application in hand is dismissed. Now to come up on 19.4.2011, for rebuttal evidence, if any and for arguments.” Hence, in view of these facts, the documents now sought to be produced by petitioner-defendant no.4 are not necessary for deciding the controversy in dispute between the parties, which is as to whether a co- sharer can sell any specific khasra number out of joint property, without getting the same partitioned. Civil Revision No.2541 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 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. 20.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge