Ram Chand Gupta, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 8.2.2010 (Annexure P-5) vide which application filed by the Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 for restoration of the appeal and for deciding the same on merit was dismissed by learned appellate court.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned appellate court.

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement for sale dated 9.6.2003 was filed by Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff Swaran Singh against the present Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 and other Respondents No. 2 to 4 -Defendants regarding the land in dispute. The said suit was decreed. Appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree passed by learned trial court by the present Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 and Respondents No. 2 to 4. During pendency of appeal, statement was given by counsel for the Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 and other Appellants for withdrawing the said appeal on the plea that matter has since been compromised between the parties. On the basis of the statement of the counsel for the Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 and other Appellants, learned District Judge, Kapurthala passed the following order on 8.4.2008:



Present: Sh. Amanpal Singh Dhillon, Advocate for

the Appellants.

Sh.RK Arora, Advocate for Respondent.

**

Sh. Amanpal Singh Dhillon, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney of Appellant Nos. 2,3 and 4 and the attested photocopy of general power of attorney in favoour of Appellant No. 1 by these Appellants has also been filed. Sh. Amanpal Singh, Advocate has made a statement, reduced into writing for withdrawing the appeal. In view of his statement, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Appeal be consigned to record room, while record of the lower court be returned back forthwith.

4. After passing the said order, an application was moved by the present Petitioner-Appellants on the plea that there was no alleged compromise between the parties and that the statement was given by counsel without any authorisation on behalf of the Appellants and hence, the order dated 8.4.2008 be recalled and appeal be heard on merit. However, the said application was dismissed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide impugned order dated 8.2.2010 by observing as under:

5. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and going through the statement dated 08.04.2008 of Sh. Amanpal Singh Dhillon, I find that he was fully authorized to give the statement on behalf of all the Appellants, since, Surinder Singh has appeared for himself and also as attorney of Appellants No. 2,3 and 4. There was not any compromise, in writing, between the parties, which fact is clear from the statement of the counsel. The only intention of the Appellants through their counsel was to withdraw the appeal, as, they have agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff. A counsel is fully authorized to withdraw the appeal on behalf of the Appellant as held in Jagtar Singh and Pargat Singh and Ors. Case (supra).

So, the present application is without any merit and thus, the same is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room. Original file be also sent back.

5. It was after about 10 months of passing the impugned order, the present revision has been filed by the Petitioner. In view of these facts, there is no force in the arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Mr. Amandeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate was not authorised to give statement on behalf of the Appellants for withdrawing the appeal. Appeal was withdrawn as per his statement and in pursuance thereof the impugned order was passed by learned appellate court. It is also observed by learned appellate court in the impugned order that after withdrawal of the appeal on 8.4.2008, the Appellants have transferred part of the suit land to some third person, namely, Gurdip Singh vide sale deed dated 3.6.2008 and that they have not executed the sale deed in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiff in execution of the judgment and decree under appeal. So, the present application was filed just to delay the proceedings of the execution application filed by the Respondent-Plaintiff, which is pending.

6. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned appellate court in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

7. Law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004 (1) RCR 147 by Honble Apex Court 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 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.

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