Civil Revision No.672 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.672 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 31, 2011 Daljit Singh and others .....Petitioners v. Joginder Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... 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 12.1.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rajpura, Annexure P1, vide which it closed the evidence of petitioner-defendants. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 the suit for declaration was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and that judgment and decree dated 22.2.1983 passed by then learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Rajpura, is illegal, void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff with an application for injunction restraining defendant from selling, mortgaging or transferring the said land, in any manner. The suit was contested by present petitioner-defendants. Issues were framed. Evidence of plaintiff was closed. The case was fixed for evidence of defendant when impugned order was passed, which reads as under:- “ No DW is present. The counsel for the defendant Civil Revision No.672 of 2011 (O&M) -2- requested for one more opportunity. The perusal of the judicial file would reveal that defendant had availed many opportunities as well as last opportunity but failed to conclude their evidence. Thus, the evidence of the defendant is closed by order. Now for rebuttal evidence, if any to come upon 22.1.2011.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that only one more opportunity be granted to petitioners-defendant. However, he has failed to convince this Court as to why evidence was not produced by petitioners-defendant when several opportunities were granted by learned trial Court to them, as is clear from the impugned order. The evidence was closed when no more evidence was adduced, despite several opportunities, and despite last opportunity. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the order passed by learned trial Court. 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. 31.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge