IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 579 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 Aftab Begum and another ..Petitioners. Versus. Nisara Begum and others ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? . For the Petitioner (s): Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Inderjit Singh Narwal, counsel for Respondents No.1 to 5. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral): 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2009 whereby the objections filed by the present petitioners have been dismissed. 2. This case has a long a chequered history. Originally the present JD Aftab Begum had filed a suit against the decree holder Mohd. Rehman which culminated in the judgment dated December 14, 2000 passed in RSA No.294 of 1994. Though the suit filed by Aftab Begum was dismissed on merits and it was held that she had no right to the property in question, an injunction was passed in her favour and in favour of JD No.2 Shamshad Begum that 2 they would not be dispossessed from the portion of the property in their occupation except in accordance with law. This judgment was passed on December 14, 2000. 3. Thereafter, Mohd. Rehman filed a suit and the present respondent Nisara Begum is the wife of Mohd. Rehman. This suit was decreed and even the Regular Second Appeal No.421 of 2007 filed by the JDs was dismissed on 20.11.2007. 4. Thereafter, they filed objections and the main objection appears to be that such execution proceedings cannot proceed without succession certificate in favour of Nisara Begum and that in the judgment dated 14.12.2000 there was a finding that till the JDs are alive they should not be dispossessed from the property. 5. I have read the judgment dated 14.11.2000 in detail. No doubt there is a passing observation that the present JDs are the widow and divorcee and should not be dispossessed but in the operative portion of the judgment the only direction given was that they would not be dispossessed from the portion of the property in their occupation except in accordance with law. 6. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated which were decided in favour of the Decree Holders. After so many 3 years the Decree Holders cannot be denied the fruits of the decree. After the death of Mohd.Rehman the Decree Holders were brought on record as his legal representatives and in such an eventuality there is no requirement of succession certificate. 7. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that both the JDs are ladies, I feel it appropriate to grant them reasonable time to vacate the premises. Therefore, time is granted to them to vacate the premises up to 31.3.2011 subject to the condition that they shall file an undertaking before the learned trial Court on or before 30th November, 2010 that they shall peacefully handover the possession of the premises to the Decree Holders on or before 31.3.2011 and that they shall not raise any further objection in this behalf. In case they fail to file such undertaking within the time granted the decree shall be executed in accordance with law. No costs. October 27, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. PV