Civil Revision No.3866 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3866 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: May 12, 2011 Kashmir Singh .....Petitioner v. Lakhwinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.D.K.Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated 10.4.2010, Annexure P3, vide which property of petitioner-judgment debtor in execution proceeding of judgment and decree dated 27.2.2010 has been attached by learned Executing Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Admitted facts are that a suit for recovery of `66375/- alongwith cost and interest was filed by respondent-plaintiff against petitioner-defendant and the said suit was decreed for `59,250/- alongwith pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the realization of the decretal amount, vide judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dated 27.2.2010. Civil Revision No.3866 of 2010(O&M) -2- Execution petition was filed by respondent-decree holder for execution of the said judgment and decree and in view of the said execution petition, property belonging to the petitioner-judgment debtor was ordered to be attached vide impugned order. The only point contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- judgment debtor is that petitioner-judgment debtor has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned lower Court before learned first appellate Court. However, admittedly, no stay has been granted by learned first appellate Court against the impugned judgment and decree. 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 passing the impugned order, vide which property of the petitioner-judgment debtor has been ordered to be attached, 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 that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.3866 of 2010(O&M) -3-