Civil Revision No.5854 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5854 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 19, 2011 Gurpreet Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Dalip Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.25317-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record copy of written statement and reply, Annexures P5 and P6 respectively. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.23366 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5854 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 5.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Moonak, vide which application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for amendment of the plaint filed by respondents no.1 to 3- plaintiffs has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone Civil Revision No.5854 of 2011(O&M) -2- 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 inter se relationship of respondents-plaintiffs has been given in para no.3 of the plaint. Written statement was filed admitting the said relationship. However, after commencement of trial and after part evidence of respondents-plaintiffs was also recorded, the present application was filed for amending para no.3 on the ground that there was typographical mistake on the part of lawyer of respondents-plaintiffs in typing correct relationship of plaintiffs inter se and hence, an amendment is sought, which was allowed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial. It is further contended that it cannot be said that relationship was not in the knowledge of plaintiffs when original plaint was filed and that rather in the cross- examination, one of the plaintiffs has admitted that written statement has correctly been filed on their behalf by the counsel. Hence, it is contended that learned trial Court has committed illegality in allowing the application. However, perusal of reply filed to the application shows that the relationship which now sought to be incorporated by way of amendment in para no.3 of the plaint has not been specifically denied by present petitioners-defendants. The application is being opposed on technical ground that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial. However, in view of the fact that the mistake is only typographical one and the same is not going to change the nature of the case, it cannot be said that Civil Revision No.5854 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 19.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge