Civil Revision No.1336 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1336 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 3, 2011 Mahi Pal Rawat .....Petitioner v. Darshan Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.Abha Rathore, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 12.4.2010, Annexure P1, and 29.7.2010, Annexure P2, vide which objections, Annexure P10, filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor were dismissed in the execution petition filed by respondent no.1-Darshan Singh- decree holder. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Executing Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession as owner by specific performance of contract dated 14.5.1999 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff for sale of property in dispute was filed, which was contested by defendant no.1-Smt. Amrit Varsha alias Sarita Vashishth as well as by present petitioner, who claims to have purchased a portion of the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 20.8.2001 from defendant no.1 and had taken the plea that he is bona fide purchaser for consideration. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. However, the suit filed Civil Revision No.1336 of 2011(O&M) -2- by respondent no.1-plaintiff was decreed by learned trial Court. Issue no.3 regarding sale deed dated 20.8.2001, allegedly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of present petitioner was decided against him and the sale deed was held to be null and void. Appeal filed by present petitioner against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge. He filed Regular Second Appeal against the said judgment and the same was also dismissed. Execution petition was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff, which was resisted by present petitioner. He also filed objections, which were dismissed by learned Executing Court and the possession of the premises in dispute was delivered to respondent no.1-plaintiff decree holder and the execution petition was disposed of as satisfied by learned Executing Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is bona fide purchaser for consideration and that he is in possession of a portion of the premises in dispute and, however lock has been put on the ground floor of the premises in dispute thereby depriving the use of the aforesaid premises. However, the objection has been dismissed by learned Executing Court by observing that petitioner had been taking the said plea since the very beginning, even during the pendency of the suit and that the said plea was not accepted by the Courts and the decree has become final and pursuant to that decree, possession has been delivered to respondent no.1-plaintiff decree holder. 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. Sufficient reasons have been given by learned Executing Court. In passing the impugned order. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court 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 Civil Revision No.1336 of 2011(O&M) -3- that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 3.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge