Civil Revision No.6700 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6700 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 3, 2011 Gurdeep Singh alias Bhara Singh .....Petitioner v. Balwinder Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.26136-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6700 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for setting aside impugned order dated 19.9.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budhlada, Annexure P1, vide which application filed under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code by respondents-decree holder was allowed and property of present petitioner-judgment debtor, already stands attached, was ordered to be sold. 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- Civil Revision No.6700 of 2011(O&M) -2- judgment debtor that maintenance was awarded in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Cr.P.C.'), which were instituted subsequently by respondent-wife and hence, the only objection is taken that maintenance cannot be awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in civil suit filed for maintenance. However, there is nothing on record to show that any amount was paid by present petitioner as maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the period claimed in the suit. Suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2003. The amount remained unpaid. It was mentioned in the decree itself that amount of maintenance so awarded would be first charge on the share of present petitioner in the property. Impugned order shows that a sum of `75,338.38/- were due as maintenance from the present petitioner- judgment debtor. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that 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 Civil Revision No.6700 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 3.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge