CR No.2298 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2298 of 2011. Decided on: May 02, 2011. Baljinder Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS Mohan Singh and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The decree-holder-petitioner had filed an application for execution of decree for mandatory injunction directing the judgment debtor-respondent Nos.2 & 4 to remove the wall from point C to D and directing respondent judgment debtor No. to remove the wall from point E to F and G to H in the site plan which . . . 1 CR No.2298 of 2011 form part of the record. It was also prayed that wall G to H should be removed by judgment debtor No.3 from point I to J. Pursuant to a decree passed in favour of the decree holder and against the judgment debtor Nos.1 to 5, for mandatory injunction directing them to remove the walls to C to D, E to F, G to H and I to J, respectively, the executing Court had appointed Balliff who had got the walls removed. An application was again filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, for attachment of the property of the JDs and for sending them to civil imprisonment for interfering in and blocking the natural flow of rainy water to the house of the decree holder leading towards the point as shown in letters MIKN by providing police help. The said application has been dismissed by the executing Court observing that no direction can be given to the judgment debtors beyond the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2008. I do not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the executing Court. However, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment debtors had raised a wall after the earlier walls had been removed regarding which an application Annexure P-5, was submitted on 18.11.2010. The said application has not been considered though the impugned order has been passed on 14.02.2011. He has also argued that by raising earth level in a mischievous manner, the flow of water has been blocked. I have considered the contentions of the counsel for . . . 2 CR No.2298 of 2011 the petitioner and I am of the opinion that there is no ground made out for interfering in the impugned order. However, in case any application has not been considered or by an indirect manner, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner is being violated, it will always be open to the petitioner to file a fresh execution application and if any application has not been considered, a request can be made to the executing Court for reconsideration of the application which is felt to have been left undecided. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 02, 2011. rka . . . 3