Civil Revision No.206 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.206 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 13, 2011 Balbir Singh .....Petitioner v. Vishnu Bhagwan Mittal and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.816-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.206 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 23.12.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal, vide which application filed by petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding the land in dispute. Notice of the suit was given to petitioner-defendant, who appeared before learned trial Court and however, instead of filing any written statement or reply to the application, he filed an application for appointment of Local Commissioner, which was declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order. Present petitioner-defendant had not placed on record any evidence to show prima facie that he is ever in possession of the property in Civil Revision No.206 of 2011 (O&M) -2- dispute. It has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that Court is not to collect the evidence for the parties. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court dismissing the application filed by petitioner-defendant for appointment of Local Commissioner even before filing of written statement. Law is well settled 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge