Civil Revision No.550 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.550 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2011 Gurpreet Kaur .....Petitioner v. Thana Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.G.L.Bajaj, 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 15.9.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, in Civil Suit No.146 of 27.9.2008, vide which application filed by petitioner for making rectification in her statement, when she was cross- examined by the counsel for respondent nos.1 to 2 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 trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit was filed by petitioner and respondent nos.4 to 5 against respondent nos.1 to 3 before learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Talwandi Sabo for declaration to the effect that they are co- sharers in joint possession to the extent of 1/8th share of the land measuring 256 kanals 8 marla in question situated in Village Kamaloo, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, on the plea that the same is the joint family property and that respondent no.3, i.e., their father has got no right to alienate them and hence sale-deed executed by him in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2 regarding 1/6th share of land is null and void. Respondent nos.1 and 2 contested the said suit and filed written statement. However, respondent no.3 was proceeded against ex parte. Civil Revision No.550 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Statement of petitioner-plaintiff was recorded by learned trial Court in the presence of counsel for the parties. Affidavit of statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff and she was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent-defendants. Her cross-examination was conducted on 4.11.2009. An application was filed on her behalf on 9.11.2009 stating that cross-examination was not properly recorded and hence the request was made to change some sentences in her cross- examination which prayer was declined by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that cross-examination was not recorded by the trial Court in its hand-writing and hence the same is not correctly recorded by the official. However, even the complete copy of the statement has not been placed on record. It has been mentioned by learned trial Court in the impugned order that the statement was recorded in the presence of both the counsel and that none of the counsel for the parties pointed out any error in the recording of her statement, which was signed by petitioner-plaintiff admitting the same to be correct and it was also signed by counsel for both the parties. 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, 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 and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 27.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.550 of 2011 (O&M) -3-