JUDGMENT : ROMESH VERMA, J. 1. The present petition arises out of the order, dated 29.11.2016, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., whereby an application filed by the present petitioners/ defendants/ Judgments Debtors under Order 8, Rule 3-A read with Section 151 CPC, has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff, Gurdit Singh, filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehra, District Kangra on 18.1.2005. It was averred in the plaint that the petitioners/judgment debtors took forcible possession of the vehicle of the plaintiffs/respondents/decree holders bearing registration No.HP-68-0258 being driven by Hardev Singh, son of plaintiff, at the instance of defendants in an illegal and mala fide manner. It was submitted that signatures of son of the plaintiff were obtained on the blank papers in an illegal manner. It was averred that the defendants be restrained not to mis-use the signatures of the plaintiff or his son obtained on the blank papers with further prayer to pass a decree directing the defendants to return the vehicle of the plaintiff. 3. In the said suit, the present petitioners/defendants were duly served. The defendants after proper service were represented though their counsel, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate, however on 01.03.2011 when none appeared for the defendants, they were proceeded ex parte. 4. The learned trial court proceeded with the matter and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, vide judgement and decree, dated 12.09.2011. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that no appeal was preferred against the said judgment and decree before the competent court of law. 5. The decree holders/respondents filed an execution petition No. 43/2011 before the learned trial court. In the said execution petition, the decree holders filed an application under Order 21 Rules 11 A, 31, 32 (2), 38 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil imprisonment. 6. On issuing notice in the aforesaid execution petition, the petitioners/judgment debtors appeared before the executing court through their counsel. In the said execution petition, the decree holders filed an application under Order 21 Rules 11 A, 31, 32 (2), 38 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil imprisonment. 6. On issuing notice in the aforesaid execution petition, the petitioners/judgment debtors appeared before the executing court through their counsel. The learned executing Court directed the judgment debtors to appear before the Court on 13.03.2012 but they failed to comply with the judgment and decree sought to be executed and therefore, their counsel sought an adjournment for filing the objections and the same was granted and the same was granted subject to payment of Rs.300/-. The said cost was not paid, rather the judgment debtors filed an application being CMA No. 338/2012 on 16.08.2012 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside decree dated 12.09.2011 passed in C.S. No. 22/05, which application was dismissed on 07.11.2013. The judgment debtors were again directed to appear in person in the execution petition but they did not abide by the judgment and decree passed against them and they intentionally flouted the directions of the concerned Court, therefore, it was prayed that the judgment debtors be arrested and detained in civil imprisonment in the interest of justice. 7. The judgment debtors/petitioners filed a detailed reply to the said application and various objections with regard to the maintainability, locus standi, estoppel etc. were taken. On merits, all the averments as made in the application were refuted and it was stated that the decree is non executable and no relief can be granted to the decree holder in the attending facts and circumstances. 8. An undated application being CMA No. 295/2016 under Order 8 Rule 3A read with Section 151 CPC for submitting the documents was filed by the judgment debtors/petitioners. It was averred in the application that the judgment debtors/defendants want to produce the documents i.e. sale certificate, bouncing cheques, loan agreement etc., before the Court. It was averred in the application that they have filed objections to the execution petition on the ground that the execution filed by the decree holders/respondents is non-executable. Further, it was averred that the documents sought to be produced on record would enable the Court to go to the root cause of the case for pronouncement of judgment. 9. It was averred in the application that they have filed objections to the execution petition on the ground that the execution filed by the decree holders/respondents is non-executable. Further, it was averred that the documents sought to be produced on record would enable the Court to go to the root cause of the case for pronouncement of judgment. 9. The said application was duly contested by the decree holder by filing reply, wherein it was averred that the documents sought to be produced on record cannot be allowed to be produced in the execution petition as the judgment debtors/petitioners were represented through their counsel and they failed to file written statement and the case was adjourned on 10.1.2011 and 8.2.2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/- and Rs.500/-, which was not paid and thereafter, judgment debtors/petitioners were proceeded ex-parte. Further, it was averred that at the stage of execution petition no fresh documents could be allowed to be filed in view of the mandate of the law. It was also averred that the loan agreement cannot be executed by Hardev Singh, son of the plaintiff/decree holder as co-borrower since the vehicle allegedly financed by the judgment debtors/respondents is exclusively owned by the plaintiff/decree holder Gurdit Singh only. 10. The learned trial court vide its order dated 29.11.2016 dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtors/petitioners and feeling dissatisfied therewith, the judgment debtors/petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant petition. 11. Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors has contended that the execution petition which has been filed by the respondents/decree holders is not maintainable and in order to corroborate such submission, the documents, which were intended to be filed by the petitioners by means of application (CMA No. 295/2016), ought to have been allowed to be brought on record as the documents in question would help the executing court in adjudicating the execution petition in its letter and spirit. He has further submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore after setting aside order dated 29.11.2016, passed by the learned trial court, the aforesaid application may be allowed. 12. On the other hand, Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has defended the impugned order and he has submitted that the order dated 29.11.2016 is legal, valid and sustainable and no interference of any kind is required. 12. On the other hand, Mr. H. R. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has defended the impugned order and he has submitted that the order dated 29.11.2016 is legal, valid and sustainable and no interference of any kind is required. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order after hearing respective counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material available on record. 14. It is a matter of record that the decree holders/respondents filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction in the trial court on 18.1.2005. In the said suit, present petitioners were arrayed as defendants. They were duly served in the said suit and were represented by their counsel, Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate. However, since the petitioners failed to file written statement, the case was adjourned on 10.1.2011 and 8.2.2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/- and Rs.500/-, which was not paid and ultimately, the learned trial court was constrained to pass an ex-parte order against the petitioners/judgment debtors on 1.3.2011. Thereafter, the learned trial court proceeded with the matter and vide its judgment and decree dated 12.9.2011 decreed the suit as filed by the decree holders/respondents. 15. It is also a matter of record that against said judgment and decree the petitioners did not prefer any appeal before the appellate authority. It has come on record especially in the application filed by the decree holders, under Order 21 Rule 11 A, 31, 32 (2), 38 CPC read with Section 151 CPC that an application was filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors under Order 9 rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte decree, however, the same stood dismissed on 7.11.2013. The execution petition No.48/2011 was filed before the learned executing court on 9.11.2011 and despite passing of more than 15 years decree is not satisfied till date. 16. As observed above, instead of complying with the directions as contained in the judgment and decree, the petitioners/judgment debtors filed a cryptic application for submitting the documents under order 8 Rule 3A. This half page application is neither attested nor it is duly supported by an affidavit. Even halfheartedly prayer has been made by the petitioners to produce sale certificate, bouncing cheques, loan agreement etc. This half page application is neither attested nor it is duly supported by an affidavit. Even halfheartedly prayer has been made by the petitioners to produce sale certificate, bouncing cheques, loan agreement etc. in order to corroborate their case and that the execution petition is not maintainable. 17. Interestingly, in the entire body of the application there is no averment that how these documents are relevant in order to adjudicate the execution petition nor it has been stated that despite due diligence these documents could not be filed at the initial stage. 18. The learned trial court vide its order dated 29.11.2016 dismissed the application by assigning valid reasons that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. 19. As a matter of fact, once there is judgment and decree in favour of the decree holders, therefore at this stage, the petitioners/judgment debtors cannot be permitted to create the evidence in order to fill up lacunae. 20. It would be clear from the perusal of the record that the decree holders are running from pillar to post for the last more than 21 years for getting justice since the suit was instituted by the respondents/decree holders on 18.01.2005 for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, which, as observed above, was decreed in their favour, and despite passing of considerable period, still execution petition has not been decided till date. 21. The application on the face of it lacks particulars and reasons to file said documents and the same will not give any premium to the judgment debtors to file the documents at the stage when the execution petition has to be satisfied in terms of the judgment and decree sought to be executed. 22. The conduct of the judgment debtors/petitioners speaks volume, as observed above, in the main suit, the judgment debtors were served and they were duly represented by their counsel, however they failed to pay costs and ultimately, they were proceeded ex parte. An application filed by the judgment debtors for setting aside ex parte order was also dismissed. Admittedly no appeal against the judgment and decree was preferred by the judgment debtors. An application filed by the judgment debtors for setting aside ex parte order was also dismissed. Admittedly no appeal against the judgment and decree was preferred by the judgment debtors. Once the judgment and decree has attained finality, the execution petition cannot be stalled by filing such application, which has no connection with the determination of the controversy in issue and the application seems to have been filed just to prolong the matter in order to avoid execution of the decree. 23. Perusal of the application would go to show that neither there is any averment in the application as to how and under what circumstances those documents are relevant for deciding the controversy in question nor it has been spelt out therein what relevance the said documents have got to decide the issue in question. The plea of due diligence is also missing in the application, therefore, the learned trial court was right in dismissing the application and holding that the executing court cannot look into fresh documents and cannot go behind the decree that too at the stage of execution. The learned trial court has rightly rejected the application by appreciating material on record. 24. This Court is of the opinion that no interference of any kind is required in the impugned order and the same is valid, legal and sustainable. 25. The judgment debtors have approached this court by invoking provisions of article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. This is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 (4) SCC 181 has held as under:- 15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 27. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 28. Before parting, the learned executing court is requested to expedite and decide the execution petition as soon as possible. 29. The petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.