Civil Revision No.610 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.610 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 28, 2011 Baldev Singh .....Petitioner v. Jagdish Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.2441-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.610 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 3.12.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar, vide which application filed by the petitioner for adducing additional evidence 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. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.10.2000 vide which respondent-defendant agreed to sell land measuring 4 kanal situated at Kartarpur, in favour of petitioner- plaintiff. Defendant filed written statement denying execution of the said agreement by him in favour of the plaintiff. On the application of petitioner-plaintiff, learned trial Court has directed him to get the disputed thumb impression of respondent-defendant on agreement to sell compared with his admitted thumb impressions on vakalatnama as well as on the written statement filed in the Court. Civil Revision No.610 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The present application was filed by petitioner-plaintiff for getting the disputed thumb impression of respondent-defendant compared with his specimen thumb impression taken in the Court on his statement, when he was examined. The application was moved when the case was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, after conclusion of evidence of both the parties, and hence, the same was disallowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. Law is well settled that application for additional evidence under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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. Hon'ble Apex court in Salem Advocate's Bar Association v. Union of India 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530 observed as under:- “14..... On a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just.” The basis of case of present petitioner is execution of agreement by respondent-defendant in his favour. Execution of agreement was denied by the respondent-defendant in the written statement and hence, it has been rightly observed by learned trial Court that petitioner-plaintiff was to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence in affirmative. Learned trial Court had directed him to get the disputed thumb impression of respondent-defendant on agreement to sell with his admitted thumb impression on vakalatnama and the written statement filed before the court. However, neither, he has availed that opportunity, nor sufficient cause was shown as to why the said opportunity was not availed. The evidence is of affirmative and not of rebuttal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that evidence now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was not within his knowledge or he could not produce the same at the time evidence was being led, despite due diligence, as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate's Bar Association's case (supra). Civil Revision No.610 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Moreover, 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 by not allowing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff to lead additional evidence 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. 28.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge