IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 446 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Shri Hirde Ram & another .....Petitioners. Versus Smt. Tikki .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). Petitioners have suffered a decree for possession of certain land, which is described in the judgment and also in the operative part of the judgment of the First Appellate Court, by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff/DH was decreed. However, in the decree sheet itself, neither the description of the property was given nor was it stated as to what kind of decree had been passed. The decree sheet simply says that the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff is accepted. 2. When Execution Petition was filed by respondent/DH for the possession of the suit property, a petition, under Section 47 CPC, was filed by the JD/Petitioners, alleging that since the description of the property was missing in the decree sheet, the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- decree was in-executable. It was also stated that the Executing Court could not go beyond decree and, therefore, it could not make reference to the judgment of the Appellate Court to ascertain what type of decree had been passed and what was the description of the property to which that decree pertained. Executing Court has dismissed the objections. Present petition is directed against those objections. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Objections raised by the present petitioner are meritless, rather frivolous. Appellate Court’s judgment, by which appeal of the respondent/plaintiff against the decree of dismissal of suit passed by the trial Court was accepted, very specifically and clearly states that decree for possession of land bearing Khasra No. 8172 was passed. Where the formal decree sheet is silent about the nature of the relief granted, as also the description of the property, reference can always be made to the operative part of the judgment, on which the decree is placed. 5. In view of the abovesaid position, petition is dismissed being without merit. Executing Court’s record with the copy of this order be sent back immediately and the parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 2nd August, 2010. (Surjit Singh) Judge 16th July, 2010 (rajni)