Civil Revision No.4879 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4879 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 12, 2011 Manjit Kaur .....Petitioner v. Jaswinder Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.19486-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4879 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 2.2.20111, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide which appeal filed by petitioner-objector against order dated 3.9.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sangrur, dismissing objection petition filed by present petitioner-objector, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the orders passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell was passed in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff- decree holder and against present petitioner and respondent no.1- judgment debtor, who is none else than husband of present petitioner. Pursuant to the said judgment Civil Revision No.4879 of 2011(O&M) -2- and decree, sale deed was got executed by learned Executing Court in favour of respondent no.1-decree holder. However, possession of the premises in dispute was not delivered to her. Warrant of possession was issued. Firstly objections were filed by respondent no.2-judgment debtor, i.e., husband of present petitioner and the same were dismissed and now another objection petition was filed by present petitioner by taking the plea that the premises in dispute was given to her by her mother-in-law by way of oral gift and not to her husband without prima facie showing any document in her favour. Hence, both the Courts have rightly come to the conclusion that the present objection petition has been filed by present petitioner in connivance with her husband just to delay the execution of judgment and decree, which was passed as early as on 6.6.2005. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders 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 error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings Civil Revision No.4879 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 12.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge