IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.167 of 2010 Date of decision : July 23, 2010 Laiq Ram …Petitioner. Versus Narain Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jitender P Ranote, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) A decree for removal of certain encroachment, in the form of mandatory injunction, has been passed against the present petitioner-JD. During the course of execution proceedings, he filed objections, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One of the objections taken by him was that the decree had already been executed, after the filing of execution petition. He examined a Revenue Officer, who went to the spot to give demarcation, in support of his contention. Trial Court has dismissed the objections, vide order dated 20th September, 2009. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner says that he would be satisfied, in case some Revenue Officer is deputed to execute the decree, because such an Officer will be Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… in a position to identify the site, from where encroachment is to be removed, under the decree. There should be no hitch in acceding to the prayer. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, with a direction to the Executing Court that instead of getting the decree executed through the Bailiff of the Court, it be got executed from the field staff of the Revenue Agency. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of, in view of the disposal of the main petition. July 23, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J