Civil Revision No.5321 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5321 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Market Committee .....Petitioner v. Kundan Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr.Partap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.21311-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5321 of 2011 Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 14.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide which petitioner-judgment debtor was directed to claim reserve price of booth allotted to respondents-decree holders at the rate prevailing at the time of policy dated 10.2.1987 in compliance with the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2004. 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. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that as Special Leave Petition filed by petitioner in the Hon'ble Apex Court Civil Revision No.5321 of 2011(O&M) -2- was dismissed in the year 2006 and hence, price prevailing in the year 2006 is to be charged from respondents-decree holders regarding the booth allotted to them. Admitted facts are that land belonging to respondents was acquired by petitioner in the year 1980. As per policy of the year 1987, respondents were entitled to be allotted a booth on reserve price. As no booth was allotted to them as per the said policy, suit was filed by respondents-plaintiffs for claiming the said relief, which was decreed by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2004, operative part of which reads as under:- “14. In view of my findings on the above issues, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed with costs. The defendants are directed to allot a site/shop to the plaintiff at reserve price in New Grain Market, Shahbad, according to his entitlement and the reservation policy within three months from today and they are accordingly restrained from auctioning all sites/shops to others except by reserving a site/shop for the plaintiff. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.” Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Second appeal filed before this Court was also dismissed. There is also no dispute that Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner before Hon'ble Apex Court was also dismissed. Execution petition was filed by the respondents. On notice being issued, booth was allotted to respondents-decree holders in compliance with judgment and decree dated 7.1.2004 by petitioner and, Civil Revision No.5321 of 2011(O&M) -3- however, respondents were directed to pay the price prevalent in the year 2006. Said plea was not accepted by learned Executing Court and rather the petitioner was directed to charge reserve price as per policy dated 10.2.1987, i.e., reserve price prevalent at the time of policy. 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. 23.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge