Civil Revision No.5534 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5534 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Rakesh Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. Hari Parkash and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.22099-22100 of 2011 Both the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5534 of 2011 Petitioners have invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 18.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide which appeal filed by petitioners against order dated 16.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, i.e., Executing Court, in execution petition filed by respondent-decree-holder against the respondent- judgment debtor was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-decree holder filed a suit for specific performance of agreement against respondent-judgment debtor, Ram Kumar in the year 1993. The suit was decreed ex parte in his favour and against Civil Revision No.5534 of 2011(O&M) -2- respondent-judgment debtor Ram Kumar vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.1997. The decree has become final as the same was not challenged. Respondent-decree holder filed execution petition for execution of the said decree. In execution, sale deed was also executed as per order of the Court in favour of respondent-decree holder. However, when warrant of possession was issued, the present objections were filed by the present petitioners-objectors. However, before filing the present objections, brothers, sisters of Ram Kumar -judgment debtor filed a separate suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present decree-holder impleading Ram Kumar as defendant challenging ex parte decree dated 7.1.1997 and agreement to sell dated 15.4.1993, which was decided upto this Court. Earlier a suit was also filed by one of the present petitioners- objectors, namely, Munna Lal impleading his other brothers as pro forma defendants challenging the agreement to sell dated 15.4.1993 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 1.7.1998 and the sale deed dated 16.8.1999 with an application for temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 9.11.2010. However, on the same grounds, the present objections have been filed. On appreciation of evidence, objection petition was dismissed by learned Executing Court. Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the plaint property in dispute has been described as shop whereas in the decree it was mentioned as house. Hence, it is pleaded that the decree is not in accordance with law. However, the said plea cannot be accepted at Civil Revision No.5534 of 2011(O&M) -3- this stage. The decree has become final. Sale deed has also been executed in favour of respondents-decree holders. However, he has not been able to seek possession as per judgment and decree, though the decree is of the year 1997, due to filing of suit by one or the other relatives of the present petitioners-objectors. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below 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 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. 23.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) Civil Revision No.5534 of 2011(O&M) -4- meenu Judge`