IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C. Review No. 35 of 2007 Date of decision: September 29, 2010 Har Dei and others. Petitioners. Versus Ishwar Dass and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Nishi Goel, vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) CMP(M) No. 551 of 2007 Heard. Delay condoned. Disposed of. CMP(M) No. 151 of 2008 Heard. Allowed. LRs named in the application, are ordered to be substituted as respondents in place of deceased respondent No.1. Disposed of. C. Rev. No. 35 of 2007 Heard and gone through the record. Decree for possession of site of a hut had been passed by the two courts below in favour of the respondents and against the present petitioners. Petitioners challenged the decrees of the two courts below by filing an appeal. That appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.4.2007. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… In the present review petition, it is alleged that decree is inexecutable, on account of site of the hut being not identifiable. Submission is without merit, because there is reference to a tatima in the judgment and the location of the hut is indicated in that tatima. Therefore, contention that the site is not identifiable and hence the decree in inexecutable, is unfounded. Another ground of review is that one of the appellants was dead when the appeal was dismissed. As regards appellant, who was dead and whose estate was not represented, appeal is to be treated to have abated on account of his LRs having not taken any steps to come on record and the effect of the abatement is similar to that of the dismissal of the appeal. Appeal as already noticed, has been dismissed on merits. Another objection raised by the petitioner is that the land of which the site of hut is a part is still un-partitioned. This submission is also without merit. The land is abadi and admittedly the parties are in possession of separate portions thereof. Thus, decrees of the two courts below, passed against all the appellants, stand upheld and are, therefore, executable. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 29, 2010(vt) (Surjit Singh), J