Civil Revision No.5385 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5385 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011 Harbhajan Singh and others .....Petitioners v. Jeeto and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 30.5.2011, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Anandpur Sahib, in execution Application No.12 dated 8.8.2009, vide which objections of present petitioners-judgment debtors were 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. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- judgment debtors that Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing special leave petition vide order dated 27.11.2009, Annexure P4, kept the legal points open to be decided in appropriate case. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners-judgment debtors that Hon'ble Apex Court had kept the legal points open to be decided in execution proceedings before the Executing Court. Rather question of law Civil Revision No.5385 of 2011(O&M) -2- was kept open to be decided in some other appropriate case. Next point argued by learned counsel for the petitioners- judgment debtors is that the execution petition is barred by time as the judgment and decree was passed in this case on 6.8.1987 and hence, the execution petition should have been filed within 12 years of passing the judgment and decree by learned trial Court. On the point he has placed reliance upon Ratansingh v. Vijaysingh and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 279. So far as legal proposition in the aforementioned judgment is concerned, there is no dispute. However, in this case though judgment and decree was passed on 6.8.1987 by trial Court, however, first appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was decided on 14.5.1990. Present petitioners-judgment debtors filed regular second appeal before this Court, which was decided on 4.3.2009. He has failed to show to this Court that there was no stay from this Court of the impugned judgment and decree during pendency of regular second appeal before this Court. He has also failed to show before learned Executing Court that there was no stay from this Court. Even it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rattansingh's case (supra) that if stay is obtained from appellate Court, the decree would not become enforceable. Hence, in view of the fact that petitioners-judgment debtors have failed to show to this Court that there was no stay during pendency of the regular second appeal before this Court, 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 Civil Revision No.5385 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 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. 5.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge