IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.246 of 2001. Date of decision: 17.6.2008. Smt.Sarla Devi and others ….Petitioners. -Versus- Sh.Bhagat Chand and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, counsel for R-1. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) Brief facts of the case are that a decree was passed in favour of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Decree Holders) and against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the JDs) on 14.3.1983. The suit was compromised by the parties and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise Ext.PX. The JDs agreed to remove the wall/structure by which they had obstructed the path. According to the DH, the JDs failed to comply with the terms of the compromise decree. An Execution Petition was filed in the year 1988 for implementation of the decree. Objections were filed which were decided against the JDs. Number of Revision Petitions were filed by the JDs during the course of Execution Petition. Stay was granted by this Court and thereafter the stay was vacated. 2 In the Execution Petition the Decree Holders had prayed that a warrant be issued directing the JDs to remove the obstruction in the path in dispute and also to send the JDs in civil prison for obstructing the path in violation of the decree. Finally warrant of attachment was issued for attachment of the property of the JDs. On 5th June, 1998 the executing Court passed the following order: “Warrant of attachment has been received back after execution. This is an injunction decree, which is sought to be executed by attaching the property of the J.D. Warrant has been received after attachment. Hence nothing more is required to be done in this petition. Further action if any will depend upon the fact whether after 6 months from the date of attachment decree is obeyed or not. The petition is therefore ordered to be consigned to the record room.” This order was not challenged by any party. A perusal of this order shows that the execution petition was not disposed of. All that was said in the order was that if the JD fails to comply with the decree then the decree holder would be at liberty to approach the Court after six months for further action. Immediately after six months the decree holder filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC in which he made the same prayer as has been made in the Execution Petition. It would be pertinent to mention that in this new application the decree holder made reference to the earlier execution petition as well as the order dated 5th June, 1998 passed by the executing Court. However, the prayer clause was framed in such a manner which indicated that the execution petition was a fresh execution petition. This was in fact treated as a fresh execution petition. The executing Court held that an attachment is valid only for six months and no 3 sale could be ordered after six months. The decree holder also filed an application for summoning the record of the original Execution Petition being No.51-10 of 1988. This application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that since the present petition had been filed for sale of attached property after six months of attachment the record could not be summoned. The learned Court below, in my opinion, committed a grave error while passing this order. It should at least have called for the record to see what order was passed in the original Execution Petition. On a perusal of the order which has been quoted above, it is clear that the Execution Petition was not disposed of and was still pending. It had, in a sense, only been adjourned sine die. No doubt, the second application filed by the decree holder was not very happily worded but if the learned trial Judge had even cared to read the application he would have found that it was clearly mentioned in the applications that vide the earlier order passed on 5.6.1998 the execution petition had not been dismissed and it had been held that the execution petition can be revived after six months. There is no reason why this prayer of the decree holder should not have been allowed. The execution petition must be taken to its logical conclusion. Even if the attachment has lapsed there is nothing which prevents the executing Court from ordering fresh attachment. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of either party, I direct that the application under Order 21 Rule 32 filed on 2.12.1998 before the Sub Judge (1), Rohru shall be treated as part and parcel of original execution petition No,.51-10 of 4 88 and shall be dealt with by the Executing court. The execution petition shall be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law. Since the decree in the case was passed in the year 1983 and the execution petition has been hanging fire for almost 20 years, the Executing Court is directed to dispose of the same as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st March, 2009. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on July 29, 2008. The Registry is directed to ensure that the record of the case be sent back so as to reach the Executing Court well before the said date. Petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. June 17, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge