Civil Revision No.2118 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2118 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 28, 2011 Iqbal Singh .....Petitioner v. Hakam Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K.Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8390-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2118 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21.8.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faridkot, vide which learned Civil Judge ordered the petitioner-Judgment debtor to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of one month and has also issued the conditional warrants of his arrest. 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. A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order on 28.3.2011: “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will be agreed to pay the principle amount in case the security is taken on the interest part. Adjourned to 28.4.2011. The execution of the impugned order is stayed, however, the principle amount will be deposited in the trial Civil Revision No.2118 of 2011(O&M) -2- Court, failing which the order passed today will automatically stands vacated.” It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not complied with the said order. Decree was passed against present petitioner for recovery of `50,000/- alongwith cost and interest on 10.9.2004. The decree has become final. Nothing has been paid by petitioner-judgment debtor since then. It has been observed by learned Executing Court that he is also interfering in the attachment proceedings of the property owned by him and that there is also apprehension that he will leave the local limits of the Court and he is also in the process of selling his house just to frustrate the execution of the decree. 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 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. 28.4.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge