JUDGMENT Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral):- C.M.No.13026-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record copies of Zimni orders. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.2230 of 2011 2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 16.2.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, (for short the ‘Tribunal’) vide which application filed by the petitioner for summoning the witnesses was declined. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. 4. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for compensation was filed by respondents-applicants on account of death of Kashmir Singh, in an accident, which had occurred on 12.12.2007 involving Bus No.PB-06-1110, being driven by Satnam Singh, respondent no.1, owned by Sarup Singh, respondent no.2 and insured with present petitioner, i.e., respondent no.3. Applicants are parents, widow and minor children of deceased. The petition is pending since 13.2.2008. 5. Perusal of the various zimni orders passed by learned Tribunal shows that respondents no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel on 9.6.2008. Present petitioner-respondent no.3 also appeared through counsel on 12.3.2009 and filed power of attorney. After written statement was filed by all the respondents, issues were framed on 6.5.2009. Even application filed by present petitioner-respondent no.3 under Section 170 of the Act was allowed by learned Tribunal on 6.5.2009. Order dated 5.8.2009 passed by learned Tribunal shows that all the necessary documents, i.e., copy of insurance company, RC, route permit and Driving licence were already on the file. Evidence of respondents-claimants was closed on 21.7.2010 and thereafter the case was adjourned for evidence of all the respondents for 25.8.2010. However, when no witness was present on 25.8.2010, the case was adjourned to 20.10.2010. On 20.10.2010 as well, when no witness was present, the case was adjourned to 22.12.2010. On 22.12.2010, one witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 19.1.2011 for cross- examination of that witness. However, on 19.1.2011, when no witness was present, the case was adjourned to 23.2.2011. On 23.2.2011, one witness was examined and evidence of respondents no.1 and 2 was closed. On 22.12.2010, one witness was examined and the case was adjourned to 19.1.2011 for cross- examination of that witness. However, on 19.1.2011, when no witness was present, the case was adjourned to 23.2.2011. On 23.2.2011, one witness was examined and evidence of respondents no.1 and 2 was closed. On the same day, on behalf of petitioner-respondent no.3, some documents were tendered and, however, no other evidence was present and hence, evidence of petitioner-respondent no.3 was closed by learned Tribunal by passing the following order:- “One RW is present and has been examined and learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 closed the evidence after tendering some documents. The ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 also tendered into evidence verification report of the D.L. of Satnam Singh. No other evidence of respondent no.3 is present. The respondents have already availed of five effective opportunities to conclude the evidence but respondent no.3 failed to conclude the evidence. As such, the evidence of the respondent no.3 is closed by order. At this stage, the ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has also moved an application for verification of the renewed D.L.No.12929 RDL dated 27.5.2005 and original D.L.No.2017/GSP/N/03 issued to Satnam Singh. On the perusal of the file, I find that respondents have already availed of five effective opportunities to conclude the evidence and there was sufficient time with the Insurance company to get the D.L.verified from the concerned Licensing Authority. Moreover, this claim petition pertains to the year 2008. As such, the application for verification of the D.L. is declined and the case be put up on 16.3.2011 for arguments.” 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent no.3 that earlier to 23.2.2011, an application was moved on behalf of petitioner-respondent no.3 for summoning of two witnesses, i.e., on 16.2.2011, which was disallowed by learned Tribunal without assigning any reason. 7. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent no.3. Case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner-respondent by learned Tribunal on 21.7.2010 and the date fixed was 25.8.2010 and hence, if petitioner-respondent no.3 wanted the assistance of the Court for summoning of the witnesses, the said application should have been moved within seven days from 21.7.2010, as has been directed by learned Tribunal in its order dated 21.7.2010. Case was adjourned for evidence of petitioner-respondent by learned Tribunal on 21.7.2010 and the date fixed was 25.8.2010 and hence, if petitioner-respondent no.3 wanted the assistance of the Court for summoning of the witnesses, the said application should have been moved within seven days from 21.7.2010, as has been directed by learned Tribunal in its order dated 21.7.2010. However, no such step was taken by petitioner-respondent no.3, rather the application for summoning the witnesses was filed about a week before the fifth date fixed for evidence of petitioner-respondent no.3, i.e., a week before 23.2.2011, when the impugned order was passed. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 10. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. -----------0.K.B.0------------