IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 36 of 2011 Decided on: 07.09.2011 Bidhi Chand & another …Petitioners. Versus Kanshi Ram …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nadaun, whereby the Judgment Debtors (petitioners herein) had been directed to remove the structure from 8 sq. mts. on khasra No. 257/1, which has been raised in violation of the decree of the Court dated 26.09.1998. 2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) filed a suit No. 120 of 1995 titled Kanshi Ram versus Bidhi Chand & others 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- praying that a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction be passed restraining the petitioners from interfering in khasra No. 70 and 110 situate in village Joal Sapar, Mouza Nounghi, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. 3. The admitted facts are that the decree was passed in favour of Decree Holder on 26.09.1998. It has been held by the learned trial Court that despite the decree, the judgment debtors constructed the pillars on the night of 07.11.1998 on khasra No. 70 despite the protest of the decree holder. Thereafter, the decree holder filed the present execution praying for demolition of the construction raised in violation of the order of the Court. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence has come to a finding of fact that the construction was raised by the judgment debtors after the decree had been passed and, therefore, directed the judgment debtors to remove the structure from 8 sq. mts. of land, which after consolidation has been re-numbered as khasra No. 257/1. 4. I have heard Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 5. Attempts were even made to get the matter settled between the parties, but the decree holder was not willing to accept anything else but the demolition of the property. -: 3 :- 6. On the perusal of the record, it is apparent that the decree dated 26.09.1998 has attained finality. The only issue is whether the construction was raised after the decree was passed in violation of the same or not. A Local Commissioner was appointed. According to him, the construction was raised on new khasra No. 257/1, which corresponds to old khasra No. 70. It has further revealed that illegal construction has been raised on 8 sq. mts. of land. The objections filed to the report of the Local Commissioner are basically with regard to the identity of the land. It has been urged before me also that it does not stand proved that khasra No. 257/1 is identical to khasra No. 70. In my view, these are pure questions of fact which cannot be gone into in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Executing Court was right in deciding these questions of fact and since there is no error of jurisdiction, this Court cannot interfere in the same. 7. From the proved facts, it is apparent that the construction was raised in the month of November, 1998, i.e. after the decree was passed. A person who disobeys the decree cannot turn around and claim that some special concession be given to him and his property be not demolished. The construction was raised by the petitioners knowing fully well that a decree has been passed against -: 4 :- them. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 07, 2011 (rajni)