Civil Revision No.113 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.113 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 7, 2011 Charan Dass .....Petitioner v. Smt.Parkash Rani and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.K.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 7.12.2010, passed by Executing Court, vide which it dismissed the objections of the petitioner and ordered for issuance of warrant of possession of the rented premises for 10.1.2011. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor 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 an ejectment petition was filed against the petitioner by respondents in which order of ejectment was passed in favour of respondents and against the present petitioner-judgment debtor. The said order was challenged by the present revision petitioner upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, however, he could not succeed. Objection petition filed by him before the Executing Court on the plea that he had filed SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court was also dismissed as he could not produce any stay. However, he has not taken any plea before this Court that there is any stay by Hon'ble Apex Court. Rather, it has been stated that the order has been maintained upto Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, in view of these facts, order passed by learned Executing Court for issuance of warrant of possession of rented premises Civil Revision No.113 of 2011 (O&M) -2- for 10.1.2011 cannot be said to be in any way illegal, warranting interference by this Court. 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 of 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, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. 7.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge