IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.181 of 2006. Judgment Reserved on: 06.08.2008 Date of decision: 25.08.2008. Smt.Lajwanti & Others …Decree Holders-Petitioners Versus Smt.Shanta Sharma & Others …Respondents-Objectors Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision has been preferred by the Decree Holder against the order passed by the executing Court dated 31.8.2006 holding therein that since there is no structure to be demolished, which exists over the path, therefore, the present decree is not executable. Hence, the execution petition was dismissed, as non-executable. It is undisputed that the matter has a chequered history which shows resistance of the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 Judgement Debtor. On 9.11.2005 in CMPMO No.136 of 2005 this Court held:- “Apparently in the impugned order, the learned Court below did not take notice of the fact that the revenue record produced before it did show that the old Khasra No.410/246/1 was changed to new Khasra No.500, 527 and 564. This resulted into a factual error having crept into the impugned order. Notwithstanding the aforesaid factual error the decree is still executable because whether the land comprised in the aforesaid Khasra Number is or is not a public path the obstruction thereupon has to be removed in execution of the decree. Actually I go as far as to comment and observe that if the land comprised in the aforesaid Khasra Number has been declared as a public path, that is all the more reason that no unauthorized structure is allowed to exist on this land. I hold that the decree is executable and the learned Court below was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s objection petition. This petition is dismissed based on the aforesaid observations but without any order as to costs.” After remand, again the matter was again considered by this Court. By an order dated 28th May, 2007 this Court ordered: “Learned Counsel for the parties agree that before proceeding any further in 3 this matter, the Court should have the benefit of a fresh report of inspection from a Revenue Officer. They accordingly also agree that the Tehsildar (Urban), Shimla should be appointed as the Local Commissioner for carrying out the inspection and submitting the report. Based upon te aforesaid agreement, I hereby direct the Tehsildar(Urban), Shimla to inspect the land in questin with a view to finding out whether any obstruction on the path in question over the said land exists or not. To carry out the aforesaid inspection in the light of the aforesaid directions, the petitioners are directed to produce before the Tehsildar all the relevant papers, who himself goes through the papers and understands the points of controversy involved in the case. The inspection shall be carried out under intimation to the petitioners and respondent through Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate and Mr.Rajpal Thakur, Advocate, respectively. The report shall be submitted to this Court within six weeks from today.” Pursuant to this, the report of the Local Commissioner has been placed on the record. At the time when the inspection was made, both the parties expressed their satisfaction to the report in the following terms:- 4 “Byan Shri Ashwani Sharma son of R.C. Chandla, aged 34 years, Resident of Komale Bank, Chandla Bhawan. On oath. Byan Kiya ki aaj mouka per Tehsildar (Shehari) ne badgrast number Khasra ki nisan dehi kitta kassi se ki gai. Nisandehi mouka se main sehmat avom santusht hoon.” Objections have now been filed to the report by the respondent herein on a number of grounds including the fact that the Local Commissioner has not complied with the provisions of Chapter-X, Clause-10.2 of the H.P. Land Records Manual and the Local commissioner has not complied with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). This is resisted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. A reading of the statement of the respondent herein shows that no objection regarding fixing of pucca points etc. was taken by him and he was satisfied with the demarcation. In such a situation, he cannot be allowed to agitate or re-agitate the matter again and again in the manner he seeks to do. He cannot be permitted to render the decree inexecutable and deny the fruits of the decree to the petitioner. The objections on this count cannot, therefore, be entertained. This petition is accordingly remanded to the learned executing Court which shall consider 5 the report and the objections filed by the respondent except those which relate to fixing a pucca point etc. and then to dispose of the execution in accordance with law. For this purpose, both the parties shall be given ample opportunity to establish their case. The revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 22nd September, 2008. Record, if received, be sent back forthwith. August 25, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.