Civil Revision No.1175 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1175 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2011 Sunil Kumar .....Petitioner v. Smt.Krishna Devi and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Manoj Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.4841-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just objections. Civil Revision No.1175 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 1.10.2010, Annexure P3, vide which objections filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor have been rejected. 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. The only point contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the objections of petitioner were dismissed by learned Executing Court on the ground that no appeal, as envisaged under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, was filed by present petitioner against the impugned award passed against him by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is further contended that though the said observation is incorrect as appeal was filed by the petitioner, which is pending before this Court and however, no stay was granted in favour of petitioner. Be that as it may, admittedly in the appeal filed by the Civil Revision No.1175 of 2011(O&M) -2- petitioner against the impugned award, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, no stay has been granted by this Court. The objections taken by present petitioner before learned Executing Court are the part of the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Executing court that the objections are not such which can be decided by learned Executing Court, as Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. 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 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. 17.2.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge