Civil Revision No.3265 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3265 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 17, 2011 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Ajit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.12975-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3265 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 15.4.2011, Annexure P4, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patti, i.e., learned Executing Court. 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. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that petitioner has alleged himself to be a subsequent vendee, vide registered sale deed dated 27.7.1997, executed in his favour by judgment debtor during pendency of the present suit. Hence, in view of these facts, the objection petition filed by present petitioner under Order 21 Rules 97 to Civil Revision No.3265 of 2011(O&M) -2- 99 read with Order 21 Rules 58, 59 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') was dismissed by learned Executing Court. Admittedly, petitioner is a subsequent vendee after institution of the suit, in which decree was passed. Hence, objections of petitioner to resist or obstruct execution of a decree passed in favour of respondents- decree holders are not maintainable. It is pertinent to reproduce Order 21 Rule 102 of the Code, which reads as under:- “102. Rules not applicable to transferee pendente lite Nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person. Explanation : In this rule, "transfer" includes a transfer by operation of law.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that nothing mentioned in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which decree was passed. 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. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Revision No.3265 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 17.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge