Civil Revision No.3006 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3006 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 6, 2011 Sakattar Singh .....Petitioner v. Inder Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Dinesh Ghai, 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 the impugned order dated 18.3.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patti, vide which the application of the petitioner-plaintiff to deposit the diet money for summoning the witnesses 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that due to negligence of counsel, diet money could not be deposited and, hence, petitioner-plaintiff could not be made to suffer for that lapse on the part of counsel. He has also placed reliance upon Hazara Singh v. Bachan Singh, 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 357. Impugned order passed by learned trial Court reads as under:- “File taken up today on the application filed by the plaintiff for deposit of diet money of the summoned witness. Perusal of the file shows that plaintiff has already availed a number of opportunities including through last opportunity to complete the entire evidence, now the case is fixed for 30.3.2011 for entire evidence of the plaintiff as last opportunity. Since earlier the plaintiff has failed to deposit the diet money of said witness despite specific order dated Civil Revision No.3006 of 2011(O&M) -2- 16.10.2009 in this regard, so now the plaintiff is not entitled to get the assistance of the Court for summoning his witnesses. The application in hand is, therefore, declined. For entire evidence of the plaintiff, as last opportunity, now to come up on 30.3.2011, date already fixed.” Petitioner-plaintiff has already availed several opportunities including the last opportunity to adduce evidence. He was required to file list of witnesses with the request for summoning any of witnesses alongwith process fee and diet money within specified period of framing of issues and before the first date fixed for evidence of petitioner-plaintiff. However, the said course was not adopted by petitioner-plaintiff as no such request for depositing the diet money for summoning any witness mentioned in the list of witnesses has been made by him. The request has been made after availing several opportunities and after availing last opportunity. Learned trial Court has only directed the petitioner-plaintiff to bring his entire evidence now at his own responsibility on the ground that now he cannot get the assistance of the Court for summoning the witnesses. Petitioner- plaintiff has not even placed before this Court 0 list of witnesses, if any, filed within the stipulated period. 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. 6.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3006 of 2011(O&M) -3-