CR No.4496 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4496 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Moti Ram and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) CM No. 17723-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No. 4496 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.7.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla vide which application for leading additional evidence filed by the petitioner 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 trial court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents sought to be produced are certified copies of revenue record and that the same cannot be fabricated and however, the same could not be CR No.4496 of 2011 (O&M) 2 produced earlier, as the petitioner could not procure the same from the revenue authorities. He has also placed reliance upon Narinder Kumar vs. Shri Sat Narayan Mandir through Trust Committee Hindu Panchayati Dharmshala and another 2011(3) Punjab Law Reporter 203 , wherein in petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the facts and circumstances of that case, application for additional evidence for producing sanctioned site plan of the construction raised on the demised premises, was allowed. Perusal of the application for leading additional evidence Annexure P-2 shows that it has not been mentioned as to why the documents now sought to be produced i.e. Khatoni Istemal, Naqsha Haqdarwar and Khatoni Paimish are necessary for deciding the controversy in dispute. The petitioner -plaintiff had challenged the order of redemption dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Collector on various grounds. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that one of the ground is piecemeal redemption of mortgage. Application has been opposed by filing reply Annexure P-3, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that application is vague one and that detail and nature of the documents required to be produced, their concern and value for the adjudication of the suit have not been disclosed and the said documents have no relevance for the suit. Twelve opportunities have already been availed by the plaintiffs to lead their evidence and they have taken more than 2 years and thereafter, the case was adjourned for evidence of defendants. The present application has been moved by the plaintiffs when the case was at the argument stage. CR No.4496 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Hence, in view of the fact that petitioner has failed to satisfy this court as to how the documents now sought to be produced are relevant for the decision of the present controversy, 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