JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral):- The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 1.3.2011, Annexure P1, vide which learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Code’) seeking rejection of the petition filed by respondent on the plea that the same was not filed within prescribed period of limitation. 2. 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. 3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent filed a petition under Section 176(4)(b) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, challenging election of present petitioner as Panch of Village Mandori. Notice was issued to the present petitioner, who filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the petition on the ground that the period of limitation prescribed for filing of application is 30 days and, however, the petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. The request has been declined by learned trial Court after observing as under:- “After pondering to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record carefully, this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition has been filed by petitioner Smt.Rajo assailing the validity of election for the post of Panch of Ward No.7 of Gram Panchayat, Mandori held on 6.6.2010. The instant petition was filed on 16.7.2010. As per the applicant’s version, the petition is barred by limitation as a period of 30 days has been provided to file such kind of petition. In this case, the period for filing the petition lapsed in first week of July 2010. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that Civil Court remains closed from 16th June to 15th July every year. The petition has been filed on the opening day of Civil Courts, i.e., on 16th July, 2010. As per limitation Act, the period during which the civil Court remain closes, is liable to be condoned. In the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. As per limitation Act, the period during which the civil Court remain closes, is liable to be condoned. In the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected as barred by limitation. Finding no merit, the instant application stands dismissed.” 4. It has been contended be learned counsel for the petitioner that period of limitation expired on 6.7.2010 and, however, the petition has been filed on 16.7.2010. 5. However, learned trial Court has dealt with this plea in the aforementioned order. Civil Courts were closed upto 15th July, 2010 and on the first opening day of civil Courts on 16.7.2010, the petition has been filed by respondent. 6. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in dismissing the application of petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 7. Moreover, law is well settled 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. 8. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. -----------0.K.B.0------------