State of Punjab and Another vs Hai Om Narang

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

C.M. No. 23689-CII of 2010

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Civil Revision No. 5996 of 2010

The present revision petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against orders dated 8.10.2009, Annexure P5 and 26.7.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ferozepur, vide which warrant of attachment of the property of the Petitioners was issued.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ferozepur.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that Respondent -Hari Om Narang was working as Junior Engineer in PWD (B&R) Department, Punjab. He was dismissed from service on 20.11.1998 vide order of Petitioner No. 1. He challenged the said order before learned Civil Court, Ferzoepur. Suit of Respondent was decreed by learned Civil Court. Appeal filed by Petitioner No. 1 against the said judgment before learned District Judge, Ferzoepur, was also dismissed. Petitioners filed Regular Second Appeal before this Court, which was also dismissed. The decree remained unsatisfied and hence Respondent filed execution petition, in which warrant of attachment of property of judgment-debtors was ordered to be issued vide impugned order Annexure P5. An application for recalling of order of attachment was filed on behalf of the Petitioners and however, the same was also dismissed vide impugned order Annexure P6, in view of the fact that Regular Second Appeal filed before this Court by Petitioner No. 1 was also dismissed. Order Annexure P6 reads as under:

An application for recalling the order of attachment and for staying the execution proceedings during the pendency of RSA No. 747 of 2009 pending before the Hon''ble High Court, has been moved by the JD. Heard. Perusal of the file reveals that said RSA has already been dismissed by the Hon''ble High Court vide order dated 12.5.2010. In view of these facts and circumstances, the application in hand is dismissed being devoid of merits. Let warrant of attachment be issued for 7.8.2010 on furnishing warrant fee and list of property within 7 days.

Hence, in view of these facts it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners fails to satisfy this Court as to why the said order was illegal. Only contention raised is that fresh disciplinary proceedings are being initiated against Respondent No. 1. However, even if that is so, it cannot be said that impugned order passed by learned Executing Court for execution of decree which remained unsatisfied are not in accordance with law.

Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004(1) RCR 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.

There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.