IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.164 of 2008. Date of decision: 17.7.2008. Gian Chand & Others ….Petitioners Versus Larja Ram ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the orders passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur refusing to stay the execution of a decree passed in Civil Suit No.348/1997. The plaintiffs had earlier moved an application in the suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Hamirpur with a prayer that an injunction be granted against the defendants qua portion of the suit land which was the subject matter of an earlier suit between the parties, which land was in the ownership of the State Government. The learned trial Court holds that once the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 judgment and decree has been passed, the Court cannot interfere in execution petition in a subsequent suit. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought to my notice Annexure P-2 which is the report of the Tehsildar saying that the execution is sought for land and building which is in the possession of the State Government. Surely, it was nobody’s case before the Courts below as also in the suit which was instituted prior to the institution of the present suit out of which these proceedings arise that Government land was involved. Once it was found by the Tehsildar, who has submitted a detailed report Annexure P-2, the Courts should have been alive to the situation that execution was sought for in a decree for a portion of the land which did not belong to the Decree Holder but was that of the State Government. How and under what circumstances this was to be handed over to the Decree Holder is not clear. It is one thing to invoke a principle that proceedings in execution cannot be stayed and another thing altogether to hold that the suit land being not in the ownership of the Decree Holder and being owned and possessed by the State should be handed over to the Decree Holder. The learned appellate Court has also not considered this aspect of the matter. This petition is accordingly accepted. A direction is issued to the Court below 3 that possession of the portion of the land which is identified in the possession of the State Government on which some buildings stand shall not be disturbed till the final decision of the Civil Suit. A further direction is issued that the suit shall be disposed of with due expedition. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. July 17, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.