IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.:373/2002 Reserved on: 5.7.2011 Decided on:19.7. 2011 _____________________________________________ Naresh Kumari and others. …Petitioners. Versus Kailash Devi and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Debender Ghosh, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This petition is directed against the order dated 3.9.2002 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una in Execution Petition No. 40/93. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Bhagwan Dass, predecessor-in- interest of the present respondents-decree holders (hereinafter referred to as ‘decree holder’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for possession of land 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 measuring 14 kanals 8 marlas bearing Khewat No. 183, Khatauni No. 798, Khasra Nos. 4271 and 4288 situated in village Rora Baliwal, Sub Tehsil Haroli, District Una against the petitioners-judgment-debtors (hereinafter referred to as ‘judgment debtors’ for convenience sake). The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16.6.1977. The judgment-debtors filed an appeal before the District Judge. He dismissed the same on 15.11.1979. Thereafter, R.S.A. No. 170/79 was filed in this Court. The implementation of judgment and decree was stayed by this Court on 19.12.1979. The judgment-debtors were directed to execute security bond in the trial court. The same was executed on 2.2.1980. Ad-interim order was confirmed in the R.S.A. on 3.7.1980. The R.S.A. was dismissed by this Court on 27.11.1990. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment of this Court was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.7.1991. Thereafter, an Execution Petition was filed in the court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Una on 15.10.1993. The reply was filed by the judgment-debtors to the same on 2.5.1994. 3. It is also evident from the record that the objections were filed in the Execution Petition by the 3 judgment-debtors. The issues were framed on 11.5.1999. The Executing Court dismissed the objections preferred by the judgment-debtors on 3.9.2002 and warrants of attachment of the immovable property of the judgment-debtors were issued for 18.9.2002. Hence, the present petition against the order dated 3.9.2002. 4. Mr. Subhash Sharma has strenuously argued that the matter stood compromised as per order dated 5.9.1998 whereby a sum of ` 16,000/- was deposited on 16.11.1998. He then contended that the Executing Court has come to a wrong conclusion that annual value of the crop was ` 6,000/- per annum. 5. Mr. Debender Ghosh has vehemently argued that order dated 5.9.1998 was recalled by the court on 24.4.2002. He then contended that as per material placed on record, learned Executing Court has come to a right conclusion that the mesne profits were liable to be paid by the judgment-debtors @ ` 6,000/- per annum for the period with effect from 19.12.1979 to 19.9.1992. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 4 7. It is evident from the facts enumerated hereinabove that the judgment-debtors lost the case upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The decree holder was put in possession of the suit land on 19.9.1992. There was ad-interim stay passed vide order dated 19.12.1979 in R.S.A. No. 170/79, which was confirmed on 3.7.1980. The judgment-debtors in sequel to order dated 19.12.1979 had furnished security bond on 2.2.1980 before the trial court. The fact of the matter is that R.S.A. No. 170/79 preferred by the judgment- debtors was dismissed by this Court on 27.11.1990. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment dated 27.11.1990 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Executing Court has correctly assessed the value of the crop per annum to be ` 6,000/-. Judgment-debtors have not placed any tangible material on record to establish that the mesne profits could be less than ` 6,000/- per annum. 8. Now, as far as the plea of Mr. Subhash Sharma is concerned that the matter stood compromised as per order dated 5.9.1998, suffice it to say that order dated 5.9.1998 was recalled as per order dated 24.4.2002. Order dated 24.4.2002 is detailed and self-contained. The Executing Court on 24.4.2002 after 5 recalling the order dated 5.9.1998 has directed the judgment-debtors to withdraw a sum of Rs. 16,000/-, which was deposited by them on 16.11.1998. Accordingly, the matter was never compromised as argued by Mr. Subhash Sharma as per order dated 24.4.2002. Accordingly, there is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order passed by the Executing Court on 3.9.2002. 9. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 19.7. 2011. *awasthi*