IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7253 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 26, 2011. Lakhvir Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Karamjeet Kaur. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. I.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Jattana, 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 setting aside impugned order dated 27.10.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which application for amendment filed by the present petitioner-husband was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.7253 of 2010 Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the present petitioner against the respondent for getting the marriage between the parties declared as null and void on the ground that respondent was earlier married with one Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh and that without seeking divorce from Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, she contracted marriage with the present petitioner. Petition was contested by respondent-wife. She denied that she was earlier married with Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh. Issues were framed. Evidence was led by both the parties when the present application for amendment in the petition was filed at the stage of arguments, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-husband that there is typographical error in mentioning the date of marriage of respondent with Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh as 10.03.2003 and that rather marriage was performed on 10.08.2003 and that hence, he wants to seek amendment in the date of alleged marriage of respondent with Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh. Law is well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 763 that plaintiff has no right to file application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure after the commencement of trial. The present application for amendment was filed at the final stage. Moreover, it cannot be said that the date of alleged marriage of respondent with Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh was not in the 2 CR No.7253 of 2010 knowledge of petitioner earlier, as it was only on that basis that petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by him. Respondent-wife has denied her alleged marriage with Gurpreet Singh son of Gurcharan Singh. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. 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 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. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 26, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3