Supervisory jurisdiction cannot replace execution remedies when statutory appeal or revision is available and limitation bars reopening a sale.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is confined to keeping subordinate courts within their authority and cannot be used as an appellate remedy where the Code of Civil Procedure provides appeal or revision against execution orders. The available remedies under Order XLIII Rule 1(j), Section 47 and Section 115 made the High Court petition inappropriate. After an auction sale and intervening third-party rights, satisfaction of the decree or adjustment cannot be certified under Order XXI Rule 2, and the sale can be challenged only through the specific execution remedy within limitation. The later application was therefore barred by constructive res judicata and limitation under Article 127 of the Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with orders passed in execution proceedings when statutory remedies were available; (ii) whether an application to record satisfaction of the decree and set aside the sale was barred by constructive res judicata and limitation.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with orders passed in execution proceedings when statutory remedies were available.

Analysis: The supervisory power under Article 227 is confined to keeping subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority. It is not an appellate power and cannot be used to correct a mere wrong decision or an error of law. Where an execution order is appealable or revisable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, recourse to Article 227 is inappropriate. The availability of remedies under Order XLIII Rule 1(j) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reinforced that the petition before the High Court was misconceived.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): whether an application to record satisfaction of the decree and set aside the sale was barred by constructive res judicata and limitation.

Analysis: After an auction sale has been held and third-party rights intervene, an adjustment between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor cannot be certified under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the sale can be displaced only in the manner provided by Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That remedy requires compliance within the prescribed period, and the application in question was beyond the limitation period under Article 127 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. The earlier order also operated against the later attempt to reopen the matter.

Conclusion: The application was barred by constructive res judicata and limitation.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition failed, and the impugned orders were left undisturbed because the petitioner had pursued the wrong forum and the substantive challenge to the execution sale was legally untenable.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 227 cannot be invoked to correct errors where a statutory appeal or revision lies, and after an execution sale with third-party rights, satisfaction or adjustment cannot defeat the sale except through the specific remedy provided by the execution rules within limitation.

---