Civil Revision No.1446 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1446 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 1, 2011 M/s Banarasi Dass and sons and another .....Petitioners v. Resham Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5801-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1446 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.2.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridkot, vide which evidence of the petitioners has been closed by order. 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for recovery was filed by present petitioners-plaintiffs against respondent-defendant, which was partly decreed. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, petitioners-plaintiffs filed an appeal before learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. During pendency of the appeal, an application for additional evidence for allowing the applicants/appellants to produce on the file the entries of the account books regarding the transactions between the parties was filed. The said application was allowed by learned first appellate Court with a direction to learned trial Civil Revision No.1446 of 2011(O&M) -2- Court to grant two opportunities to petitioners-plaintiffs to conclude their additional evidence. Accordingly two opportunities were granted by learned trial Court as per order of learned first appellate Court and, however, when additional evidence was not concluded even after availing two opportunities, additional evidence was closed by learned trial Court by passing the impugned order, which reads as under: “No evidence of plaintiff is present. Learned counsel for the plaintiff requested date, which is objected by learned counsel for the defendant by stating that vide order dated 10.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, two opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for adducing additional evidence and three opportunities were granted to defendants to adduce their evidence to rebut evidence of the plaintiff. File alongwith copy of order of learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, perused. Perusal of the same shows that vide order dated 10.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, two opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for adducing additional evidence and three opportunities were granted to defendants to adduce their evidence. Said two opportunities have been expired. Hence, I find no ground to further adjourn this case for evidence of plaintiff. Hence, same is closed by court order. Now for defendant's evidence, case stands adjourned to 9.3.2011.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs that only one more witness was to be examined, who is son of petitioner, who could not appear as some death took place in the relation of petitioner on that day. However, no such plea was taken before learned trial Court as is clear from the impugned order, nor any such application was filed. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why he was not examined on the first date given by learned trial Court to adduce additional evidence, as per order of learned first appellate Court. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said Civil Revision No.1446 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 1.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge