IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 146 of 2001 Date of decision : 12.5.2008 Meera Sharma Petitioner Versus H.R.T.C. and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.. For the Appellant: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, vice counsel. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th April, 2001 whereby the objections filed by the judgement-debtor have been dismissed. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the HRTC, claiming to be owner of a booth in the Bus-stand, Manali, filed a suit against the judgement debtor. In its civil suit it is averred that the HRTC had constructed six booths in the Bus-stand, Manali and one of these such booths was given on license to the judgement-debtor on payment of license fee. It was alleged that the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. judgement-debtor had not paid the license fee from May 1995 to March 1996 and therefore, Rs. 30,520/- as arrears of license fee and interest was claimed. Further future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month were claimed. This suit was contested by the judgement debtor but was decreed against her on 21st September, 1998 and a decree was passed to the effect that the judgement-debtor is liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,520/- as arrears of license fee and is also liable to pay future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month. The appellant did not file any appeal against the said decree. She, however, later filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Manali, claiming that the decree had been obtained by fraud. Such civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 7.3.2000. Thereafter, the decree holder filed execution petition. In the execution petition the judgement debtor filed objections raising the same ground that the decree holder had obtained the decree by mis- representation or fraud. Admittedly, the judgement-debtor was appearing in the civil suit. She had also appeared as a witness. In the original civil suit the objector had not taken ground of fraud or mis-representation. Thereafter, the suit filed by her was also rejected. The executing Court rightly held that there is no merit in the objections raised by the judgement debtor. A decree has been passed against the judgement debtor. The subsequent execution filed by her has also been dismissed. No executing Court can go beyond the decree. The objections actually ask the executing Court to re-open the matter decided in the civil suit. This cannot be done. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the objections. Accordingly, the petition is without any merit and is rejected. No order as to costs. May 12, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™