IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 10 of 2008. Date of decision March 25, 2008. Shri Tara Chand and another …Petitioners. Versus Shri Indar Ram and another ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This revision has been filed by the Judgment Debtors against the order of the learned executing Court holding the judgment debtors to be guilty of disobedience of the judgment and decree passed against them and ordered detention in civil prison for two months. The judgment has been affirmed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - When this matter was taken up for further proceedings, it was not disputed before me that the violation complained of has since been rectified by the petitioner-judgment debtors. Both learned counsel for the parties agreed that the judgment debtors had removed the obstruction for which they were ordered to be retained in civil prison. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged that the order which has been passed in revision is against law and cannot be sustained. According to him, the courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the defence of the judgment debtors and holding them guilty of willful disobedience / breach of the order. I am not inclined to accept these submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In revisional jurisdiction, it would not be open to me to dislodge findings of fact arrived at by the two Courts below. I have also been unable to persuade myself that there is any perversity or illegality either in appreciation of evidence or facts before the learned Courts below or of the application of principles of law involved. The contention of the learned counsel for the - 3 - petitioners is therefore rejected and the findings of disobedience are confirmed. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.2500/- as costs with the Himachal Pradesh Bar Association Welfare Fund. The petitioner shall place on record proof of payment of costs on the record of this case. The petition is disposed of. Application(s) shall also stand disposed of. March 25, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.