Civil Revision No.5613 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5613 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 15, 2011 Teja Singh alias Gurtej Singh .....Petitioner v. Om Parkash .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeepa Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 30.7.2011, vide which execution of judgment and decree passed against present petitioner was stayed during pendency of appeal by learned first appellate Court with a condition to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to decreetal amount. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court. It is pertinent to reproduce the impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court, which reads as under:- “Heard on the application for stay of the execution of the decree. The execution of the decree shall remain stayed provided the appellant furnishes the bank guarantee in favour of the respondent equal to the decreetal amount within 15 days Civil Revision No.5613 of 2011(O&M) -2- from the date of passing of this order. The application in question stands disposed of accordingly. Now the case is adjourned to 16.9.2011 the date already fixed for arguments.” Decree for recovery of money has been passed against present petitioner-defendant by learned trial Court on the basis of pronote and receipt. Appeal has been filed by petitioner-defendant against the said judgment alongwith an application for stay of the execution. Execution has been stayed by learned first appellate Court during pendency of the appeal subject to appellant furnishing bank guarantee. Condition has been imposed by learned first appellate court under provision of Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in execution petition, property of petitioner has already been attached and the proceedings are also going on for getting recovery by coercive means. However, petitioner-judgment debtor wants to get the execution stayed. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned first appellate 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 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 Civil Revision No.5613 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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. 15.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge