Civil Revision No.2336 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2336 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 6, 2011 Jag Mohan .....Petitioner v. Satya Narain and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.S.Nirban, Advocate for respondent no.1-caveator. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8908-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.2336 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 24.11.2009, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, in Civil Appeal No.107 of 2005/2007 vide which it set aside the original attachment order dated 22.11.2003 and subsequent order dated 28.9.2005, Annexure P1, passed by learned Executing Court vide which objections of respondent no.1 were dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that civil suit for recovery was filed by Rati Ram-respondent no.2 against Tale Ram Garg-respondent no.3, which was decreed in favour of Rati Ram-respondent no.2 and against respondent no.3-judgment -debtor. Decree holder filed execution petition and in the said execution petition Civil Revision No.2336 of 2010(O&M) -2- property belonging to judgment-debtor, i.e., plot No.57, Sector 21, Bhiwani, was ordered to be attached showing it to be the property of judgment- debtor. Later on the said plot was also put to auction and the present petitioner was the highest bidder and he also deposited an amount of Rs.8,90,000/- on 18.12.2005. Objection petition was filed by respondent no.1-Satya Narain on the ground that regarding the said plot, there was prior agreement to sell in his favour executed by judgment-debtor, which is dated 9.4.1997 and that the said agreement was not signed by judgment-debtor to file a suit for possession by specific performance, which was decreed in his favour and hence the said plot could not be attached and sold in the present execution. Learned Executing Court dismissed the objections raised by objector-Satya Narain-respondent no.1 vide order dated 28.9.2005, Annexure P1. Against the said order, appeal was filed by objector-Satya Narain, which was decided vide impugned order against the decree-holder as well as against the auction-purchaser and the property which was subject to attachment was ordered to be released from attachment. Against the said order two revision petitions were filed, i.e., one was filed by Rati Ram- decree-holder and the other was filed by present auction-purchaser. Revision petition filed by Rati Ram -decree-holder, i.e., Civil Revision No.2119 of 2010 was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.9.2010, on the plea that the same has become infructuous as execution petition filed by petitioner-decree-holder had since been got dismissed as withdrawn by him. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision- petitioner that he is not at a fault as he has deposited an amount of Rs.8,90,000/- on 18.12.2005 by purchasing the plot in dispute in court auction and hence he is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, vide which the said plot was released from attachment. The said plea has been contested by objector-respondent No.1- Satya Narain on the ground that right of present revision petitioner, i.e., auction purchaser cannot be said to be different from the right of respondent no.1-decree-holder and that he is having no right and that when the execution petition has already been got dismissed as withdrawn by the Civil Revision No.2336 of 2010(O&M) -3- decree-holder, the attachment of the plot in dispute and subsequent auction cannot survive. He has also contended that he has already deposited the entire amount as per decree in his favour and that the said amount was also withdrawn by the decree-holder and hence the execution was also satisfied. The impugned order was passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, by observing regarding right of the present revision petitioner-auction purchase as under:- “ In view of the detailed discussion above, where the rights of the auction purchaser flow from the rights of the respondent no.1-decree holder and are not recognizable independently, the order passed by the learned Executing Court cannot sustain itself on the anvil of law, by virtue of which, the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court is hereby set aside while accepting the appeal with costs and allowing the objections filed by the appellant which as a natural consequence thereof results in the dismissal of the execution application against the attached property only, which is ordered to be released from attachment. All the concerned parties are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 3.12.2009. After due compliance file be consigned to record room. Record of learned trial Court along with a copy of judgment be sent back forthwith.” There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the said order is, in any way, illegal or perverse warranting interference by this Court in this revision petition. The present revision petitioner may take any other legal remedy available to him under the law. When the execution has already been satisfied and when respondent no.1 was having agreement in his favour executed by judgment- debtor before attachment of the plot in dispute in the execution of decree in which present revision petitioner is auction purchaser, it cannot be said that the sale of the said very property in execution of another decree is a legal one. Learned counsel for respondent no.1-Satya Narain has rightly placed reliance upon Jagroop Singh and others v. Boria Khan (dead) through LRs and others 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 697, a judgment on which Civil Revision No.2336 of 2010(O&M) -4- reliance has also been placed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, in passing the impugned order, wherein it has been specifically held that agreement entered into by judgment-debtor prior to attachment of property in execution of decree would prevail over the attachment. 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 of 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional District Judge in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. 6.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No