Civil Revision No.2533 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2533 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2011 M/s Harchand Steel Rolling Mills, Motia Khan and others .....Petitioners v. Sukhdarshan Pal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10145-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2533 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 3.3.2011, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amloh, vide which application for releasing the property from attachment filed by petitioners has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone 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 a decree for recovery of `3,35,000/- was passed against petitioners- judgment debtors and in favour of respondents-decree holders on 28.4.2008. Appeal filed by present petitioners was also dismissed. Hence, execution petition was filed by respondents-decree holders before learned Executing Court and warrant of attachment of property belonging to petitioners-judgment debtors was issued and as per Rapat No.3096 dated 17.8.2005, share of petitioners in Khasra No.2115/435 (5-19) has been Civil Revision No.2533 of 2011 (O&M) -2- attached. After coming to know about the said attachment, present application was filed by petitioners-judgment debtors for releasing the land from attachment on the ground that attachment has not been made strictly as per Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code'), which was dismissed by learned trial Court by observing as under:- “3. After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that purpose of affixation on the conspicuous place is basically to give notice to the JD. JD is bound to pay the amount as per the decree. Instead of paying the amount he is raising such type of objections. Procedural niceties cannot be misused by JD to avoid decree. No ground for releasing the property is made out. Objection filed by JD are hereby dismissed. Now sale warrant of attached property of JD be issued as per following schedule......” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- judgment debtors that attachment was not effected strictly as per Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code and hence, the same is bad in law. However, in my view, there is no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is pertinent to reproduce Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code, which reads as under:- “54. Attachment of immovable property(1) Where the property is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an Order prohibiting the judgment debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. (1-A) The order shall also require the judgment debtor to attend a court on a specified date to take notice of the date to be fixed for settling the terms of the proclamation of sale. (2) The Order shall be proclaimed at some place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode, and a copy of the Order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous Civil Revision No.2533 of 2011 (O&M) -3- part of the court house, and also, where the property is land paying revenue to the government, in the office of the Collector of the District in which the land is situate and, where the property is land situate in village, also in the office of the Gram Panchayat, if any, having jurisdiction over that village.” A perusal of the aforementioned provision shows that purpose of this provision is to give notice to judgment debtors regarding the fact that the property has been attached so that he may appear before the Court on a specified date. In this case, in fact, petitioner got notice and he appeared before the Court. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in rejecting the application of the petitioner for releasing the attached property 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 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 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. 20.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge