C.M.No.6656-CII of 2011 and Civil Revision No.5945 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.6656-CII of 2011 and Civil Revision No.5945 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 23, 2011 Prakash Singh .....Petitioner v. Ajit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Malhar Singh Dhami, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6656-CII of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Order dated 7.3.2011 dismissing the revision petition for non- prosecution is recalled. Registry is directed to restored the petition at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.30859-CII of 2010 Requests for placing on record zimni orders. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.5945 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated C.M.No.6656-CII of 2011 and Civil Revision No.5945 of 2010(O&M) -2- 21.7.2010, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kharar. 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Code') was filed by petitioner for taking action against the respondents, on the plea that they have violated the order of the Court dated 20.8.2004, vide which respondents were directed to maintain status quo qua possession of the suit property. The application was contested by respondents. Parties were called upon to adduce evidence. Evidence of petitioner-applicant was closed and the case was fixed for evidence of the respondents, when application was filed on behalf of the respondents that petitioner-applicant filed affidavit of his statement in the evidence on 6.9.2007 and however, instead of giving any opportunity to respondents to cross-examine him, the case was adjourned for evidence of the respondents. The application was opposed by petitioner-applicant, however, the same was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order by observing that the case was inadvertently fixed for evidence of the respondents and rather the same should have been adjourned first for cross- examination of petitioner-applicant, who has already filed affidavit of his statement, as respondents are having right to cross-examine the applicant. In view of these facts, it was the duty of the Court to give an opportunity to respondents to cross-examine the petitioner after he tendered in evidence affidavit of his statement. Even statement of petitioner- C.M.No.6656-CII of 2011 and Civil Revision No.5945 of 2010(O&M) -3- applicant cannot be read into evidence without he being subjected to cross- examination by the other side. Even perusal of various zimni orders, as reproduced on behalf of the petitioner, shows that no such opportunity was granted by learned trial Court to counsel for the respondents to cross- examine the petitioner, after he tendered affidavit of his statement in evidence. Hence, 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. 23.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge