IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 72 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 ____________________________________________________ Parveen Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Prem Chand …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a decree for possession by way of mandatory injunction was passed in favour of respondent/plaintiff and against petitioner/defendant. The said decree is being executed. The objections were filed by the judgment debtor which were dismissed. It has been submitted by the petitioner that there is a dispute with respect to ‘Karukans’ and therefore, the decree passed by the Court below cannot be executed on the basis of the demarcation based upon existing revenue record showing ‘Karukans’. The learned counsel for the petitioner ______________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 has further submitted that the judgment debtor has filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(a) CPC for the production of copy of order dated 1.9.2009 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi which was rejected by the Executing Court on 13.1.2010 and warrant of possession was ordered to be issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that warrant of possession was issued by breaking open the locks without giving opportunity to the judgment debtor to show that judgment debtor had not put locks on the property under execution. 2. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 13.1.2010 not allowing the petitioner to place on record copy of order dated 1.9.2009 has no force. The decree of Civil Court is to be executed as it is. The application under Order 8 Rule 1(a) CPC is not maintainable. The second submission of the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him to show that judgment debtor had not put locks on the premises has also no substance for the reason that warrant issued earlier was received back with report that the premises has been locked by the judgment debtor and thereafter on the application of the decree holder, the Court had ordered to break open the lock. There is no substance in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. 3. In view of disposal of main petition the CMP No.168 of 2010 is rendered infructuous. March 16, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge.