Civil Revision No.4725 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4725 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 5, 2011 Chander .....Petitioner v. Ram Phal and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.18774-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.4725 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 10.3.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kaithal, vide which objections filed by the petitioner-defendant-judgment debtor in the execution petition have been dismissed and order dated 10.5.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which appeal filed by petitioner against the said order was also dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are Civil Revision No.4725 of 2011(O&M) -2- that a civil suit was filed by respondents-decree holder against the present petitioner-judgment debtor in which compromise was entered into between the parties and in view of the compromise, decree was passed in favour of respondents-decree holders and against the present petitioner-judgment debtor. Compromised decree was not challenged by petitioner-judgment debtor by way of filing an appeal. Rather, he filed an objection petition before learned Executing Court, which was dismissed by Executing Court by observing that though decree is being challenged on the ground of fraud, however, in the suit in which decree was passed, petitioner appeared in the Court and filed admitted written statement through his counsel. It has been further observed by learned Executing Court that he also made his statement, which was also identified by his counsel and the same counsel also appeared on his behalf in these proceedings. It has also been observed by learned first appellate Court that a separate suit was also filed through the same counsel for setting aside the said judgment and decree. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders 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:- Civil Revision No.4725 of 2011(O&M) -3- “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. 5.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge