Civil Revision No.6470 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.6470 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 31, 2011 Narinder Kumar .....Petitioner v. Vinod Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.25522-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6470 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 6.9.2011, Annexure P5, vide which objections filed by present petitioner-judgment debtor in execution petition filed by respondents-decree holders was dismissed. 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. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction against present petitioner- objector as well as against respondents-defendants no.1 and 3. The present petitioner was defendant no.2 before learned trial Court. He is claiming Civil Revision No.6470 of 2011(O&M) -2- rights in the property in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 20.2.1991, allegedly executed by respondent-defendant no.1 in his favour. However, the said sale deed on the basis of which he is claiming rights in the property has been set aside vide impugned judgment and decree, which has become final. Hence, when the sale deed on the basis of which present petitioner- judgment debtor no.2 is claiming rights in the property in dispute has been set aside and the decree has become final, it has been rightly observed by learned Executing Court that he is having no right to resist the execution petition on the ground that decree-holders should have filed a separate suit for partition. It has been specifically observed by learned Executing Court that present petitioner-judgment debtor no.2 whose sale deed has already been set aside is having no right to resist this execution petition. 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 Civil Revision No.6470 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 31.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge