JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - C.M.No.25334-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.6381 of 2011 2. Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.9.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ferozepur, vide which objections filed by petitioner-judgment debtor in execution petition have been dismissed. 3. 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. 4. Admitted facts are that suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was decreed against present petitioner-judgment debtor. Though appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree and, however, execution of judgment and decree was not stayed by the appellate Court and hence, execution petition is pending before learned Executing Court in which impugned order has been passed for issuing warrant of possession. Objections were raised by present petitioner-judgment debtor before learned Executing Court that as appeal has been filed, which is still pending and as the appeal is in continuation of suit, execution be stayed. However, prayer was declined by learned Executing Court by relying upon Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by observing that mere filing of an appeal shall not operate as stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate Court may order for stay of the execution of the decree. In this case, admittedly no stay against judgment and decree has been granted by the appellate Court. Petitioner instead of moving appellate Court for seeking stay of execution of decree has chosen to file objections before leaned Executing Court and on dismissal of the said objections, he has chosen to file revision petition before this Court. 5. 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. 6. 5. 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. 6. 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 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.” 7. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ------------------