Civil Revision No.5258 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5258 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 1, 2011 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Gram Panchayat Village Dakha .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.21080-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5258 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 5.7.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (D)-cum- Collector, Ludhiana, vide which application filed by petitioner for amendment of petition filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, 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 Additional Deputy Commissioner(D)-cum- Collector, Ludhiana. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to typographical mistake it was mentioned that petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute since 1980, whereas he is continuing in Civil Revision No.5258 of 2011(O&M) -2- possession since 1950 and, hence the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Perusal of petition filed by petitioner and the application for amendment shows that earlier plea was taken by petitioner that the land in dispute was leased out to petitioner by the Gram Panchayat and the income was utilised for the benefit of the villagers. Specific plea was taken that petitioner came into possession of the land in dispute as the same was given to him on lease/chakota at the rate of ` 65/- per bigha kham in the year 1980 by the Gram Panchayat and, however, respondent-Gram Panchayat has denied the right of the petitioner and that possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute has also become adverse. Now by way of amendment petitioner has sought to take the plea that the land in dispute belongs to shamlat patti and the same had been in possession of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner since the time immemorial. The land was never divested in the village Panchayat and that village Panchayat never exercised any control over this land. Hence, the petitioner has sought to change the entire nature of the petition and intends to take the entire new stand. Moreover, application has also been filed at a very late stage, i.e., after the evidence of petitioner was recorded. It is pertinent to reproduce the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in Civil Revision No.5258 of 2011(O&M) -3- controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” Law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 that no application for amendment is to be allowed after commencement of trial,unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 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 or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Civil Revision No.5258 of 2011(O&M) -4- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 1.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge