Civil Revision No.1387 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1387 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 28, 2011 Gurvinder Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Jit Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.5498-99-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P4. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.1387 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside order dated 15.1.2011, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sultanpur Lodhi, vide which objections filed by petitioners have been ordered to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.8.2011 regarding land measuring 25 kanal 2 marla, duly described in the heading of the plaint, was filed by respondent-decree holder, Jit Singh, against Karnail Singh, predecessor-in-interest of present Civil Revision No.1387 of 2011(O&M) -2- petitioner-objectors. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent- decree holder vide judgment dated 31.7.2004. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Even Regular Second Appeal filed against the said appeal has also been dismissed by this Court. Hence, decree holder filed execution application for execution of the said decree dated 31.7.2004. During pendency of the the said execution, the objections were filed by present petitioners on the plea that they had filed a separate suit challenging the said decree and hence, the decree should not be executed. The said objections have been dismissed by learned Executing Court by observing that judgment-debtors could take the objections in the separate suit allegedly filed by them challenging the main judgment and decree. It has also been observed that judgment debtors have also pleaded that they filed Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and however, no order has been placed on record. Even before this Court it has not been argued that there is stay from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this case and hence, the decree has become final. Hence, 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 and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law is well settled 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 28.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Civil Revision No.1387 of 2011(O&M) -3-