1. Heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made the following prayers:

a) The impugned money execution proceedings initiated by the present respondent against the present petitioners in the Learned Court of District Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur being registered as Money Execution (Arb) Case No. 47/2014, shall not be set aside and quashed and;

b) The impugned order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Learned Court of District Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur in Money Execution (Arb) Case No. 47/2014, shall not be set aside and quashed and;

3. The order which is referred to as the impugned order in prayer (b) is the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur in Money Execution (Arb) Case No. 47/2014. The said order reads as follows:

“Record is put up.

Petitioner is represented by Learned Counsel. Ops are absent without taking any steps up to 1:30 P.M. today. Hence the case will be heard and proceeded ex-parte against the Ops. The petitioner to take steps for issuing writ in question. Fixing 26.11.2015 for report.”

4. This Court on 27.01.2017 had made a query as to whether this Court has a power to set aside and quash an execution proceedings. In reply to the said query, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the arbitral award dated 25.04.2011 was passed in Mumbai, the present execution proceeding could not have been filed before the court of learned District Judge, Lahimpur at North Lakhimpur because as per the requirement of Section 38, 39 and 40 CPC, the procedure is prescribed as to how the decree should executed and how the decree is to be transferred. Mr. Borpujari submits that as the learned District Judge, Lakhimpur has accepted the execution petition without the same being received upon transfer from the Competent Court, the learned District Judge, Lahimpur at North Lakhimpur committed the jurisdictional error, for which the present revision is maintainable.

5. On the perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that issues raised in the present revision application were not raised by the petitioner before the Executing Court on 08.10.2015 when the said impugned order was passed, as per the order sheet annexed, the petitioner herein who are the OPs in the said execution case was absent without taking any steps up to 1:30 P.M. Consequently, it was ordered that the matter will be heard and proceeded ex-parte against the Opp. Parties and consequently, the writ was issued against the Opp. Parties.

6. On the query of this Court as regards the jurisdiction of this court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chandra Rai and Ors., reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically relied on the following paragraph 25:

“In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the Legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction though available t