IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7320 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 29, 2011. Avtar Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Balwinder Kaur and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Mohd.Salim, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jindal Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 16.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Malerkotla vide which land of the petitioner was ordered to be put on auction. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned executing Court. CR No.7320 of 2010 In this case, notice of motion was issued by this Court only to explore possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. However, settlement could not be arrived as nothing has been paid by present petitioner to respondents till today as per judgment and decree dated 18.07.2005. Respondents are fighting for recovery of amount of maintenance from the present petitioner-husband since the year 2002. Suit was filed by respondents on 16.04.2002, which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2005, Annexure P2 vide which petitioner was directed to pay `600/- each per month to his wife and the minor child i.e. the present respondents and charge was created on the land owned by the petitioner for making payment of the said maintenance amount. In proceedings for execution of the said decree the present order has been passed by learned executing Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is ready to make one time settlement with respondents-decree holders, which is not acceptable to respondents on the plea that intention of petitioner is not bona fide. Hence, in view the fact that nothing has been paid by the petitioner as maintenance to respondents till today as per the judgment and decree, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned executing Court in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 by Hon’ble Apex Court 2 CR No.7320 of 2010 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 29, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3