IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.270 of 2004 Reserved on: 5.4.2011 Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Prem Lal …. Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal. ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the judgment debtor is directed against the order dated 13.8.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the revenue authorities have again been directed to comply with the decree and to hand over the possession of the suit land to the decree holder. 2 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the decree was passed in favour of the decree holder and the portion of the decree which we are concerned with provided that since part of the suit land comprising Khasra No.839/2 measuring 0-00-84 hectares as shown in the demarcation report, Ext.PW3/A and Tatima, Ext.PW3/C is in unauthorized possession of the defendant, the defendant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the aforesaid land to the plaintiff after demolishing the retaining wall of the cowshed etc. Since the defendant did not comply with the decree, Execution Petition was filed and a warrant of possession was issued. According to the revenue authorities, i.e., Patwari, Patwar Circle, Dhar Tehsil, Palampur, he in the presence of the parties handed over the possession of the Khasra No.839/2 by symbolically breaking the land and by making proclamation in this regard by beat of drum etc. 3. Interestingly, it was the judgment debtor who filed objections to this report and in reply to the objections of the judgment debtor, the decree holder also stated that no possession had been handed over 3 at the spot and, therefore, prayed that fresh warrant of possession be issued. 4. Sh.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor submits that once warrant of possession had been issued and possession was handed over, no fresh warrant could be issued and the objections filed by the judgment debtor were not maintainable and no order could have been passed on his petition. 5. I am not at all in agreement with the contention of Sh.Ajay Sharma. It is for the Court to ensure that the decree passed by it is complied with in letter and spirit. The decree provided that the possession of the aforesaid portion of the suit land would be handed over to the decree holder by demolishing the retaining wall of the cowshed. There could have been no symbolic delivery of possession by beat of drum or breaking the land. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in issuing fresh warrant of possession to ensure that the decree is executed. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. 4 6. It is made clear that in future the revenue authorities shall ensure that the decree is complied with in letter and spirit and not in a symbolic manner as has been done earlier. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 9.5.2011. The learned Trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the matter at the earliest and in any event not later than 31st August, 2011. The Registry is directed to send the record of the learned Trial Court back so as to reach well before the date fixed. No order as to costs. April 7, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge