Civil Revision No.527 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.527 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 25, 2011 Ram Pal .....Petitioner v. The Saraswati Kunj Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. And others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.2201-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.527 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.1.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, vide which application for additional evidence filed by petitioner-plaintiff 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 petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction by taking the plea that plaintiff, defendant-respondent no.1 and proforma respondent-defendants are co-owners of the property in dispute and that sale deed bearing No.7156 dated 2.9.1998 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 and subsequent mutation No.6780 dated 7.1.1999 are illegal and void. Suit was contested by respondent-defendants and following Civil Revision No.527 of 2011 (O&M) -2- issues were framed by learned trial Court:- “i) Whether plaintiff, defendant no.1 and proforma defendants are co-owner of the property as mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP. ii) Whether the sale deed No.7156 dated 2.9.1998 and mutation No.6780 dated 7.1.1999 by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void ab-initio as alleged? OPP iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form for want of cause of action and locus standi? OPD iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD. v) Relief.” Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence. After availing several opportunities, plaintiff-petitioner closed his evidence. Defendants also closed the evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, when the present application for additional evidence was filed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that plaintiff intends to produce sale deed bearing No.2700 dated 17.7.1992, copy of mutation and copy of revenue record and also intends to examine some witnesses, i.e., officials from Registrar Office and D.C. Office in order to prove the said sale deed. Application filed by petitioner- plaintiff was disallowed by learned trial Court by observing as under:- “3. By way of the present application, plaintiff wants to place on file sale deed bearing Vasika No.2700 dated 17.7.1992 and subsequent Jamabandi and mutation. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff could not have produced the above mentioned documents earlier even with due diligence. On the other hand, the plaintiff has in the plaint itself mentioned about the sale deed bearing Vasika No.2700 of 17.7.1992. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that these documents could not be produced earlier due to inadvertence of the previous counsel is not tenable. Plaintiff could have very well produced the above mentioned Civil Revision No.527 of 2011 (O&M) -3- documents sought to be produced at this stage at the time of leading its evidence. Moreover, the present case is at the stage of rebuttal evidence if any and arguments and if the present application is allowed it would amount to re-open the trial of the case, which pertains to the year 2002. In view of the above discussion and circumstances no ground for allowing the application is made out and the same is hereby dismissed. Now to come up on 14.1.2011 for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that he be granted one opportunity to lead evidence as previous counsel was negligent in conducting the case. 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.” Hence, learned trial Court has rightly observed that the evidence, which is sought to be produced now in additional evidence was in the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff since the very beginning. The case pertains to the year 2002 and the present application has been filed when the case was fixed for final arguments. 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 to lead additional evidence and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Civil Revision No.527 of 2011 (O&M) -4- 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. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 25.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge