Civil Revision No.3669 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3669 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 31, 2011 Jai Kishan .....Petitioner v. Balbir Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14449-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3669 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.5.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat, vide which application for restoration of an application, which was adjourned sine die, was allowed, thereby granting permission to deposit the pre- emption money of `1,54,625/-. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of pre-emption was decreed in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat, vide Civil Revision No.3669 of 2011(O&M) -2- order dated 25.10.1994 and in pursuance to the said order, respondent no.1- plaintiff also deposited `1,54,625/-, i.e., 4/5th share of pre-emption money on 30.11.1994. Appeal was filed by present petitioner against the said order before learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 1.3.1996 dismissing the suit filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff Balbir Singh. Respondent no.1-plaintiff Balbir Singh thereafter filed Regular Second Appeals No.1561 of 1996 and 1058 of 1996, titled as Balbir Singh v. Jai Kishan and Smt.Masri and Balbir Singh v. Jai Singh and Smt.Kitabo. During pendency of said regular second appeals before this Court, an application was moved by respondent no.1- Balbir Singh and on the said application order dated 22.9.1999 was passed by this Court permitting him to withdraw 4/5th share of pre-emption money already lying deposited by him in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat. Accordingly, the same was withdrawn. However, both the appeals were decided and the same were remanded for fresh decision to first appellate Court vide order dated 7.2.2006. The same were decided by learned first appellate Court vide order dated 14.5.2007, vide which appeals filed by present petitioner were dismissed. Against the said judgments, again Regular Second appeals were filed by present petitioner before this Court and the same were also dismissed vide common judgment dated 19.3.2009. After the matter became final upto this Court vide order dated 19.3.2009, vide which both the regular second appeals were dismissed, respondent no.1-plaintiff moved an application before learned Executing Court for revival of the application for depositing 4/5th share of pre-emption money, which was already withdrawn by him, as per order of this Court, during pendency of Regular Second Appeals, which was allowed by learned Civil Revision No.3669 of 2011(O&M) -3- Executing Court, vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application should have been moved either before this Court or before learned first appellate Court and not before learned trial Court/Executing Court. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, as application for depositing 4/5th share of pre-emption money, after final decision of the case by this Court, has to be moved before the Court of first instance, i.e., the Executing Court. Rather, in this case, application was already pending, which was adjourned sine die and the same was ordered to be restored by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonepat. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court/ Executing 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 error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings Civil Revision No.3669 of 2011(O&M) -4- 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. 31.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge