IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. : 305 of 2003 Date of Decision : July 7, 2009 Sh. Kalyan Singh Pundir and others. Petitioners Versus Sh. Mohammed Ali and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, vice Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) A compromise decree dated 10.9.1992 was passed in Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1988, titled as Shri Kalyan Singh Pundir and others versus Shri Mohammed Ali and another by the Senior Sub Judge Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. The decree is in the following terms: “This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me (K. C. Negi) Senior Sub Judge, Nahan in the presence of Shri A.K. Rewal, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sh. D.R. Sharma, Adv. for the defendants it is ordered that a compromise decree is passed for declaration and injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, declaring that plaintiffs are 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 entitled to enjoy light, air and sunshine through their ventilators facing the land and property of the defendants and that the defendants would keep their passage adjoining the wall of the house of the plaintiffs so that the light, air and sunshine passing through the ventilators belonging to the plaintiffs would not be prevented in any manner whatsoever. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendants shall have a right to raise their construction over the land underneath Khaskas and Pathrolies of the plaintiffs house. I also pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from blocking the ventilators either by themselves or through their agents and servants or assignees whatsoever in any manner. The compromise deed Ext.CA shall form an integral part of the decree. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” The plaintiffs filed execution petition alleging violation of the terms of the consent decree. The same was opposed by the defendants/respondents herein. Vide impugned order dated 9.10.2003, the Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. dismissed the execution petition No. 44/10 of 2001, titled Sh. Kalyan Singh Pundir and others versus Sh. Mohammed Ali and another on the ground that the contents of the compromise deed were vague. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the finding of the Court below is erroneous and contrary to the record. The decree is evidently clear, inasmuch as it has been specified that the plaintiffs are entitled to enjoy light, air and sunshine through their ventilator facing land and property of the 3 defendants and that the defendants would keep the passage, adjoining the house with the wall of the plaintiffs so that light, air and sunshine passing through the ventilators belonging to the plaintiffs would not be prevented in any manner whatsoever. The order dated 9th October, 2003 is set aside. The execution petition is restored to its original number. Record be sent back immediately. The Court below is directed to consider the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. As to whether the alleged construction allegedly raised by the defendant existed even prior to the passing of the decree or any construction was raised by third party, shall be considered by the Court below. Learned counsel for the parties agree to appear before the Court below on 28th August, 2009. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 7, 2009 (PK)