IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4477 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Ram Singh ...Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Dass and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, 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 the impugned order dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed. 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. The facts relevant for the decision of the revision petition are that evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 12.2.2011 and the case was adjourned for evidence of the defendants for 16.3.2011. On 16.3.2011 no witness was present and the case was again adjourned for evidence of defendants for 20.4.2011, when the same story was repeated and the case was again adjourned for 19.5.2011. On the said date, also no witness was present and however, last opportunity was given for 20.7.2011. On that date, only one DW, who was present, was examined. As no other witness CR No.4477 of 2011 -2- was present, hence, the evidence of the defendants was closed by order of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner fails to convince this Court as to why the impugned order be set aside. Even no list of witnesses was filed. Even it has not been mentioned in the petition as to who remains to be examined. Hence, in view of 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 grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil), 147 by Hon'ble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This court can interfere only when 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. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 26.7.2011 (RAM CHAND GUPTA) gsv JUDGE