IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 307 of 2011 Vikram Singh S/O Lali and another. … Petitioners. Versus District Judge Udham Singh Nagar at Rudrapur and others. … Respondents. Mr. D.N.Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Date February 22, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1105 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 1-2-2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Judge Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Revision No. 71/2010 and the order dated 7-1-2011 (Annexure-5) passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Execution Case No. 3 of 2008. By the order dated 7-1-2011, the executing court has directed issued of process under Order 21, Rule 32(5) of the C.P.C. and ordered that the encroachment if any be removed from the disputed Rasta on the spot. By the order dated 1-2-2011, the Civil Revision No. 71 of 2010 preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the revisional court. The application of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the land is identifiable as mentioned in the plaint. The boundaries were also mentioned in the plaint and plot no. 834-D area 2.9980 hectare of village Bakainia is recorded in the revenue records. The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 16-5-2000, against which first appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by the District Judge Udham Singh Nagar. The second appeal as well as review application too were dismissed by this Court. 2 The executing court as well as the revisional court did not find favour with the petitioners. I have perused the application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. as well as the order of the revisional Court. In paragraph no. 5 of the application it is stated that in the settlement proceeding and plot no. 295 was changed to new plot no. 834-D area 2.9980 hectare. Further, it is mentioned that no Rasta exists on the spot. It reveals from a perusal of the record that the trial court as well as the appellate Courts have held in the judgment and decree that the disputed way exists on the spot. The land in suit including disputed Rasta was found to be identifiable. The suit was decreed by the trial court to remove the encroachment from the way in dispute. Learned executing court as well as the revisional Court have given a categorical finding that in the suit proceeding, existence of 10 ft wide Rasta was proved. Admittedly the first and second appeals preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16- 5-2000 were dismissed and the review application filed before this Court too was rejected. The revisional court has observed that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has attained finality. For the reasons and discussion above, I am of the view that the impugned orders passed by the courts below do not suffer from any perversity or manifest error of law. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the admission stage. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. All pending applications stands disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP