IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6032 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 29, 2011. Ishwar Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Vinod Kumar and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 06.09.2011, Annexure P5 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Karnal vide which objections filed by the petitioner- Judgment Debtor in pending execution petition were dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-objector and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned executing Court. CR 6032 of 2011 Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, respondent-plaintiff, decree holder filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction against the present petitioner-Objector as well as against respondents-defendants no.1 and 2. The present petitioner was defendant no.3 before the trial Court. He did not contest the suit and proceeded. Suit filed by plaintiff was decreed and he was held entitled that he is owner of ½ share of suit property being legal heir of deceased Anant Ram with decree of possession and consequential relief co-sharer with respondent.6-Jai Parkash and sale deed executed by respondent-defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 was also set aside. Respondent-defendant no.1 was also restrained from alienating the property in dispute to present petitioner till the same is partition in equal shares. Objections were filed on behalf of present petitioner to the effect that he has been continuing in possession of the same by virtue of agreement to sell executed in his favour by respondent-defendant no.1 and that his possession cannot be disturbed till the land in dispute is partitioned. However, plea of present petitioner-JD was rightly declined by learned executing Court. Decree holder has already been held in possession to receive possession of his ½ share of the joint land. There is no sale deed in favour of present petitioner. He has claimed possession on the basis of agreement to sell allegedly executed in his favour by defendant no.1-Jai Parkash. Hence, it cannot be said that he is not bound by the decree. Rather he is having no right to remain in possession of the property in dispute till sale deed is executed in his favour by respondent-defendant no.1. 2 CR 6032 of 2011 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 or 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 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 29, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3