IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 65 of 2008. Date of decision March 17, 2008. Roshan Lal ….Petitioner. Versus Kaushalya Devi and others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Shri Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). The judgment debtor has filed this revision against the order passed by the learned trial Court in an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the Decree Holder. It is not disputed that the Decree Holder preferred Civil Suit No. RBT No. 290/1998, titled Suhru Ram v. Roshan Lal which was decreed by the Court in their favour restraining the judgment debtor from interfering in the suit land bearing Khata No. 100 min, Khatoni No. 122 min, Khasra No. 909/244, measuring 2 marla, situated in Tika Bhakreri, Tappa Bani, Tehsil Barsar, District, Hamirpur. The allegation made by the 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - petitioner was that the petitioner being bound by the decree was intentionally violating the same. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the respondent has violated the decree dated 4.10.1999, if so its effect? OPA. 2. Relief. Based on the evidence led by the Judgment Debtor and more especially AW-3 Shri Parkash Chand, Reader to Naib Tehsildar, Barsar who had brought record of demarcation and AW-4 Shri Rattan Chand who proved the report Ex.AW-4/A and the statements of the parties Ex.AW-4/B, tatima and Field Book Ex.AW-4/C, the learned trial Court decided against the petitioners herein. The identity of the land was also proved by him. He was categoric in his statement that khasra No. 909/244 was assigned khasra No. 167. The respondent had stepped into the witness box as his own witness to say that the land was in khasra No. 356 /243 which belongs to him. Beyond that, no effort was made by him to establish the identity of this land by any other means. The learned Court directed that the petitioner be detained in civil prison for a period of one month for disobedience of the decree passed in favour of the decree holders. The Judgment Debtor is now in revision before this Court. Learned counsel for the judgment debtor has taken me through the entire record and urges that the learned Court below was wrong in ordering the detention - 3 - of the petitioner herein in civil prison as the identity of the land had not been established. He also submits that there is no proof on record that there is any disobedience of the decree by the judgment debtor. I am unable to persuade myself to accept this contention, more especially in view of the evidence of AW-3 and AW-4 which has been considered in detail by the learned executing Court. The judgment debtor was at liberty to have established the fact situation by recourse to leading evidence which has not been done by him. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error of jurisdiction having been committed by the learned Court below. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the sentence imposed by the learned Court is modified. It is directed that at the first instance, the obedience of the decree shall be enforced by attachment of the property, and in case of recalcitrance by the judgment debtor, by detention of the petitioner judgment debtor in civil prison for a period of 15 days. There shall be no order as to costs. March 17, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.