IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.667 of 2009 Date of decision : August 3, 2010 Bansi Lal …Petitioner. Versus Pritam Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents. Prayer made in the suit was that the defendants-respondents be mandated to remove obstruction caused by them in a passage, existing on Khasra Nos.1500 and 1504. A Local Commissioner was sent to the spot, who reported that a portion of the passage, on one of the two Khasra numbers, had already been partly encroached upon, by raising a Danga and throwing earth, etc. Report of the Local Commissioner was acceptable to both the parties. 2. Parties appeared before the trial Court, after the visit of the Local Commissioner and made statements that they would abide by the report of the Local Commissioner and no construction would be raised, in future, on any Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… portion of the path, passing through the aforesaid two Khasra numbers. On the basis of those statements, compromise decree was passed. Statements made by the parties were made part of the compromise decree. 3. Petitioner then filed Execution Petition, alleging that the defendants-respondents had been threatening to remove the stones fixed on the spot, as boundary mark, by the Local Commissioner and were also throwing stones on the path to obstruct it. JDs-respondents denied the allegations. Parties led evidence. While leading evidence, petitioner tried to show that Danga, which had already been constructed, before the visit of the Local Commissioner, had not been removed and sought removal of that Danga. He did not lead any evidence that the boundary marks, fixed on the spot by the Local Commissioner, were being removed or stones were being thrown on the passage to obstruct it, as stated in the Execution Petition. 4. Executing Court has dismissed the Execution Petition. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order, which is dated 3rd September, 2009. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Statements of the parties, which were recorded during the course of trial and which form part of the decree, do not find any mention that Danga, already constructed on a portion of the path, shall be removed. The parties agreed …3… that in future no construction shall be raised to cause obstruction, which implies that the parties compromised that no further encroachment was to be made and encroachment already made was to remain. In view of the abovestated position, no fault can be found with the order of the Executing Court. Present petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed, having become infructuous. Records be returned immediately. August 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J