Civil Revision No.1723 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1723 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 14, 2011 Jitender .....Petitioner v. Mukesh Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6895-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1723 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.11.2009, Annexure P9, vide which learned trial Court has reconstructed the file of Civil Suit No.192 of 2007 titled as Jitender v. Mukesh and others. 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-plaintiff, in which he had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') for ad interim injunction order, which was dismissed by learned trial Court. Petitioner-plaintiff filed appeal against the said order. However, during pendency of the appeal, suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code. Hence, appeal filed by petitioner-plaintiff against order passed by learned trial Court on application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was Civil Revision No.1723 of 2011(O&M) -2- also dismissed as rendered infructuous. Thereafter, the file of the main case was not traceable. However, as per order of learned District Judge, on the representation of the petitioner-plaintiff, file was reconstructed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 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 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. 14.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge