IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 92 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.10.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Jai Chand. .....Petitioner. Versus Bhagwan Singh. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. R.S. Jamalta, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The challenge herein in this revision petition is against order dated 05.07.2011 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., dismissing objection petition and application under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of execution proceedings filed by the petitioner (judgment debtor). Admittedly, the litigation in which the judgment and decree is sought to be executed by the respondent (decree holder) had finally culminated up to the High Court and the judgment debtor was unsuccessful throughout. Thereafter, the decree holder filed the execution petition for implementation of the judgment and decree, wherein the judgment debtor filed objections under Section 47 CPC, which were also dismissed. 2. Against the above above backdrop, the judgment 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... debtor has filed an independent suit against the decree holder, wherein he has challenged the very title of the decree holder on the ground that his successor-in-interest, Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh, was also not having title which he had lost pursuant to judgment and decree dated 26.06.1973, passed by this Court in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1970. This suit is being contested by the decree holder and admittedly there is no stay against execution of the judgment and decree, out of which the present proceedings have arisen. The suit filed by the judgment debtor shall take its own course for final disposal and may be the same shall be subject to further appeals. In such circumstances, it shall not be expedient and in the interest of justice to interfere with the impugned order dated 05.07.2011 and thus stalling the execution proceedings, which admittedly are based on litigation, which has attained finality. In case, the judgment debtor ultimately succeeds in his suit, he shall have the remedy of seeking restitution of the subject matter of the present litigation in accordance with law. 3. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being without any merit. 4. In view of disposal of the main petition, CMP No. 774 of 2011 shall also stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 19th October, 2011 (virender)