Civil Revision No.6400 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6400 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 19, 2011 Jai Parkash .....Petitioner v. State Bank of India and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.K.Rathee, 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 order dated 26.8.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh, vide which warrant of sale of land of petitioner and respondents no.2 to 9 has been ordered to be issued. 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 decree for recovery of `2,49,095/- was passed in favour of respondent-bank and against Bakhtawar and Chandgi Ram. Present petitioner is son of Chandgi, whereas respondents no.2 to 9 are the other legal heirs of Chandgi. The decree remained unsatisfied. The property in dispute was mortgaged with the bank as a security for repayment of loan and hence, in the execution filed by respondent-bank, warrant of sale of Civil Revision No.6400 of 2011(O&M) -2- mortgaged property was ordered to be issued by learned Executing Court, vide impugned order. 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, 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. 19.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge