Civil Revision No.172 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.172 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 12, 2011 Ram Singh .....Petitioner v. Satish Kumar and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, 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 impugned order dated 20.12.2010, vide which application for amendment of the written statement filed by petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali). Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that present petitioner was defendant in suit for specific performance of agreement to sell allegedly executed by the petitioner for sale of suit land in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff @ Rs.5,40,000/- per acre. It was pleaded by plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and to get the sale deed executed @ Rs.5,40,000/- per acre and however, petitioner-defendant did not get the sale -deed executed and rather he took the plea that the rate was Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. Issues were framed. Both the parties led evidence and the plea of petitioner-defendant that the rate of the land is Rs.10,00,000/- per acre was not accepted by learned trial Court and hence, suit filed by plaintiff-respondents was decreed. During pendency of the appeal filed on behalf of the present Civil Revision No.172 of 2011 (O&M) -2- petitioner-defendant, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC was filed for amendment of written statement, which was disallowed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, against which the present revision petition has been filed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that erroneous plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner- defendant that the rate was fixed @ Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, which is even against the own documents of petitioner-defendant. The rate was fixed @ Rs.5,40,000/- per acre. It has also been contended that clearance from income tax Department was obtained by the petitioner-defendant for selling the land @ Rs.5,40,000/- per acre only and hence, it is contended that petitioner-defendant only wants to admit the claim of respondent-plaintiffs that the rate was Rs.5,40,000/- per acre and not Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. He has also placed reliance upon Ishwardas v. State of M.P. AIR 1979 Supreme Court, 551. In the present case, as discussed above, petitioner-defendant intends to take an entire new plea that though he was ready to execute the sale-deed @ Rs.5,40,000/- per acre, it was plaintiff-respondent no.1, who was not ready to get the sale-deed executed even at the said rate, whereas plea already taken was that petitioner-defendant was ready to get the sale- deed executed @ Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and respondent-plaintiffs were not ready to get the sale-deed executed at the said rate. The plea was also taken that the agreement was forged by respondent-plaintiffs as in the agreement, the rate was written as Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, and in fact it was changed as Rs.5,40,000/- per acre, which plea he could not prove and hence, he has filed application for amendment of the written statement at appellate stage. Hence it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, while dismissing the application filed by petitioner-defendant for amendment of the written statement that if the amendment is allowed, the same would amount to allowing the defendant to set up an entirely new case and a de novo trial would commence. Hence, on these facts, the case of Ishwardas (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner-defendant, is of no help to the petitioner. Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai Civil Revision No.172 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 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. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge