The legal principle established is that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless there is a manifest error or grave injustice.

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of impugned orders dated 26.9.2011, Annexure P19, dated 30.9.2011 Annexure P20, dated 1.10.2011 Annexure P23, and order dated 10.10.2011 Annexure P24 passed by learned Executing Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Executing Court.

3. Admitted facts are that award was passed by Arbitrator on 6.1.1998 in favour of respondent-decree holder and against the present petitioners-judgment debtors. Vide the said award an amount of `2,35,27,995/-was awarded to the decree holder alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 1.1.1990 till the date of payment or the decree, whichever is earlier. The award was made rule of the Court vide judgment and decree dated 9.1.2001 by dismissing objections of present petitioners-judgment debtors. It was also held that respondent-decree holder shall also be entitled to claim interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of award till actual realisation. Order dated 9.1.2001 was challenged by the present petitioners, however the same was dismissed upto Hon'ble Apex Court except that the interest was reduced to 9% per annum instead of 18% per annum, as awarded by Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagadhri. Thereafter, execution petition was filed. In the execution petition as well, objections were preferred from time to time by the present petitioners-judgment debtors, which were also dismissed by learned Executing Court. Ultimately warrants of sale with regard to the attached property of judgment-debtors were ordered to be issued. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before this Court by filing revision petition primarily on the ground that warrant of sale of property of petitioners-judgment debtors has been ordered to be issued without deciding the point as to how much amount by way of interest is to be recovered by respondent-decree holder from present petitioners-judgment debtors and the revision petition was disposed of by this Court with direction to learned Executing Court to consider and decide the contention of both the parties as to how much amount by way of interest is recoverable from the petitioners-judgment debtors by respondent-decree holder, as per order passed by various courts including Hon'ble Apex Court, before proceeding further for attachment and sale of property of petitioners-judgment debtors.

4. In compliance with the order of this Court, learned Executing Court passed impugned order dated 26.9.2011, Annexure P19, and directed the parties to re-calculate the amount of interest on the awarded amount in the light of said order and the case was adjourned for filing re-calculation. However, as calculations were not filed by the parties, and as the case was old one, the calculations were made by the Court itself in pursuant to the said order, vide order dated 30.9.2011, Annexure P20, and the net amount payable on 30.9.2011 came to `4,67,71,342/-. A statement was also given by Shri S.L.Gupta, XEN, Yamuna Nagar on behalf of the petitioners-judgment debtors before the Executing Court on 1.10.2011 that the payment would be deposited by the department while reserving its right to file revision against the order passed by the Court and that the amount would be deposited positively by 10.10.2011. Hence, order dated 1.10.2011, Anenxure P23 was also passed by learned Executing Court. Fresh calculations were also furnished on behalf of petitioners-judgment debtors. The calculations furnished by the petitioners-judgment debtors were compared with the order passed by the Court of learned Executing Court. There was only slight difference in the two amounts and hence petitioners requested a date to re-calculate the same and file fresh calculations upto 10.10.2011, failing which the department would be liable t