IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R No. 93 of 2009 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 ____________________________________________________ Khushi Ram …Petitioner. Versus Julfi Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner : Mr.J.R. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge(Oral) This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 9.6.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Barsar, District Hamirpur, rejecting the objections dated 24.5.2007 of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor in the execution petition has filed the objections and has taken the pleas that the correction has been made in favour of the judgment debtor by the Consolidation Authorities and therefore, execution petition is not maintainable. The other objection taken by the judgment debtor is that decree holder had earlier filed execution petition which was dismissed and for this reason also the execution petition is not maintainable. The ______________________ ¹ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 learned Executing Court in the impugned order has observed that judgment debtor has not placed anything on record to show that the decree holder had earlier filed execution petition which was dismissed nor the judgment debtor has placed any material on record to show that the correction has been carried out in his favour by the Consolidation Authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance to the application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC the report of Local commissioner was taken on record by the Executing Court vide order dated 3.10.2008, but in the present revision order dated 9.6.2009 has been challenged and not the order dated 3.10.2008. 2. I have gone through the record. The judgment debtor has not placed anything on record to show that decree holder had earlier filed the execution petition which was dismissed and any order was passed by the Consolidation Authorities vide which some correction was made in favour of the judgment debtor which has bearing on the decree. In absence of any material on record in support of the objections, no fault can be found with the impugned order. There is no merit in the revision which is accordingly dismissed 3. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 7.4.2010. The record of the learned Executing Court be sent back immediately, so as to reach before the date fixed. 4. In view of disposal of main petition the CMP No.553 of 2009 is rendered infructuous. March 16, 2010 (Kuldip Singh) (sks) Judge.