Civil Revision No.864 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.864 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 Pardeep Kumar .....Petitioner v. Darshan Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Joginder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3522-CII of 2011 1. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.864 of 2011 2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 16.11.2010, Annexure P3, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application dated 20.10.2009, filed by petitioner was dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. 4. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for ejectment was filed against petitioner by respondent-landlord, which was decreed in favour of respondent-landlord and against the present petitioner. Respondent-landlord filed execution petition to take possession in pursuance of said decree passed in her favour. As there was no stay from appellate Court, in pursuance of warrant of possession issued in the execution petition filed by respondent-landlord, after the suit was decreed by learned trial Court, warrant of possession was issued. In the meantime, appeal filed by petitioner-defendant was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 29.7.2009. Civil Revision No.864 of 2011(O&M) -2- Petitioner also filed regular second appeal before this Court and, however, the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 2.3.2010. Hence, from these facts, possession has been taken by respondent-landlord pursuance to decree passed in her favour by learned trial Court, as the operation of judgment and decree was not stayed by any Court. 5. Only plea taken by present petitioner-tenant is that learned Additional District Judge, while deciding the appeal had directed that possession be delivered within two months and however, even before expiry of the said period, the possession was taken by the respondent-landlord. Hence, petitioner moved an application before learned Additional District Judge for ensuing contempt of Court proceedings against respondent- landlord, which was dismissed vide impugned order Annexure P3, by observing as under:- “ The tenant did not give the vacant possession to the landlord/respondent after passing of the ejectment order dated 24.12.2008 and it is pertinent to mention that the respondent/landlord filed an execution petition no.35 of 18.7.2009 for execution of the decree passed by the Ld.Rent Controller on 24.12.2008. Perusal of the file shows that warrants of possession against the property of the JD was issued for 7.11.2009, vide order dated 18.7.2009 passed by Ld.CJJD Jagraon because no stay order had been received from this Court against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2008. The warrants of possession was executed by the bailiff of the court as per the provisions of law and the report of the bailiff shows that Arun Kumar son of the applicant had taken the custody of the articles and goods kept in the shops and had thereafter given the vacant possession of the shops to the landlord, in the presence of the witnesses. It cannot therefore be said that the possession of the shops was forcibly taken from the tenant. The time period of two months as per the judgment dated 29.7.2009 passed by this Court, for giving the possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord cannot be construed as a stay order in favour of the tenant, moreso, when the landlord had already filed the execution petition on Civil Revision No.864 of 2011(O&M) -3- 18.7.2009 after passing of the ejectment order dated 24.12.2008 by the Ld.Rent Controller, Jagraon.” 6. As already discussed above, execution petition was already filed by respondent-landlord even before decision of the appeal as there was no stay and the possession was delivered to respondent-landlord in the said execution petition, as per order. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, in the impugned order that it cannot be said that the petitioner-tenant is entitled for restoration of possession, as prayed in the application. 7. 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. 8. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 9. The present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge