Civil Revision No.1624 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1624 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 9, 2011 S.Virender Singh .....Petitioner v. S.Narender Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sushil Sharma, Advocate and Mr.Dharmender Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6558-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.1624 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 7.2.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, in Execution No.RT-6/9.10.2010/31.1.2011. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was filed by present petitioner before learned District Judge, Gorakhpur, on the plea that dispute has arisen between the parties, which as per agreement is to be referred to the Arbitrator and that till then property be preserved. The application was contested by the other side. However, the same was Civil Revision No.1624 of 2011(O&M) -2- decided by learned District Judge, Gorakhpur, by passing the following order:- “ Parties are advised that they may appoint any Arbitrator for redressal of their dispute by their consensus or they may file an application before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court for appointment of any Arbitrator and till the arbitration case and its award the property in dispute shall be kept intact and the share of the parties shall be protected accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs.” Thereafter, the present application was filed by present petitioner before learned Additional District Judge, Ropar for appointment of a Receiver for preserving the property as per order passed by learned District Judge, Gorakhpur, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, by observing as under:- “4. It is not shown in these proceedings as to whether any of the parties have yet moved an application with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for appointment of an Arbitrator or whether they have reached at any consensus amongst themselves for appointing any Arbitrator. Such being the situation and finding that the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur has already observed in his order dated 26.7.2010 that the Arbitrator cannot be appointed by the said Court and further conscious of the fact that only preservation of shares of the concerned parties is directed to be observed amongst the parties to which respondents no.4 to 6 have already given an undertaking in the Court, therefore, this Court do not find any merits in the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant for appointment of a receiver. Needless to say that respondents no.4 & 6 who have given undertaking in the Court for preserving the property in dispute would be bound by the same. I also stop here to mention that statedly the impugned order has already been challenged by Civil Revision No.1624 of 2011(O&M) -3- Harinder Singh, respondent before the Court of learned District Judge, Gorakhpur and said application is pending for 11.2.2011. 5. Therefore, in entirety of circumstances and especially in absence of any direction of the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur to appoint a receiver for the disputed property, no further step is warranted in this regard. Moreover in the said order, the property (share) is ordered to be persevered and the respondents no.4 and 6 have clearly given an undertaking to this effect, which sufficiently protects the interests of the applicant and any violation may invite punitive action against the party concerned. The precept stands satisfied in view of the said undertaking. Ordered accordingly. Papers be consigned to record room.” A bare perusal of aforementioned order passed by learned District Judge, Gorakhpur shows that there is no order for appointment of receiver for protection of disputed property. The parties were directed to keep the property intact pending decision of application for appointment of Arbitrator by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. However, admittedly, no such application has been filed by the present petitioner before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court. Hence, in the absence of any specific order passed by learned District Judge, Gorakhpur, to appoint a receiver, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, in passing the impugned order and that a 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 that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Civil Revision No.1624 of 2011(O&M) -4- Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge