IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 299 of 2003 Date of decision : 15.12.2008 Govind Ram Petitioner. Versus Shawanu. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition has been filed by the judgement-debtor-defendant. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent-decree holder-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 16 biswas comprised in Khata Khatoni No. 181/243 Khasra No. 1553/555. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was granted as Nautor, 4 bighas and 18 biswas of land in Khasra No. 1503/555 and 16 biswas of land in Khasra No. 1553/555. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The defendant filed an appeal. In appeal, the learned District Judge framed two further issues on the asking of the defendant. It appears that in appeal, the defendant took the plea that the State Government had given another piece of land depicted as Khasra No. 185 (new) in place of the land earlier allotted to the defendant. After remand, this issue was again decided against the defendant. These findings were upheld by the learned District Judge. Thereafter, the defendant filed RSA No. 281 of 1988 in this Court which was also dismissed. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 Thereafter execution petition was filed by the decree holder for execution of the same. During the execution proceedings, the judgement debtor contested the same on various grounds. However, before me, the main plank of arguments is two fold. Firstly, that when the warrant of possession was sent for execution, the revenue authorities submitted a report to the executing Court that the judgement debtor is owner of new Khasra No. 192 and the decree holder is the owner of new Khasra No. 185. According to the revenue authorities, both Khasra Nos. 1505/555 and 1553/555 have been together given one Khasra No. 185 measuring 5 bighas and 7 biswas and the decree holder is in possession of the same. Therefore, the revenue authorities submitted that if another 16 biswas of land was handed over to him, he would get possession of excess land. Reliance has also been placed on Misal Hakiyat Bandobast, in which the decree holder is shown to be in possession of new Khasra No. 185, i.e. 1553/555 old measuring 0-40-82 hectares. After this report was received fresh warrant of possession was ordered to be issued on 7.10.2003. This warrant was executed and the report of the revenue authority is that possession of Khasra No. 1553/555 has been handed over to the decree holder. I fail to understand how the judgement debtor can be aggrieved by this. What has been handed over to the decree holder is only 16 biswas of land which was earlier comprised in Khasra No. 1553/555. The revenue authorities in their report have clearly stated that they have handed over land measuring 16 biswas in Khasra No. 1553/555. On the basis of this report, the Executing Court had dismissed the execution petition as satisfied on 14.11.2003. It appears that on the same date after the order of dismissal has been announced, judgement debtor filed objections. The Executing Court held that since the execution petition is fully satisfied, therefore the objections filed by the judgement debtor were rejected. I have gone through the objections. In the objections, it is mentioned that instead of 3 handing over possession of Khasra No. 1553/555, possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 192 has been handed over to the decree holder. I have heard Shri Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. This long drawn out litigation shows that the judgement debtor had forcibly occupied the land of the decree holder and after the decree was passed against him he on one pretext or the other is trying to deny to the decree holder the fruits of the decree. The report of the Revenue Officer in this case appears to be an attempt to thwart the decree of the Court. This Court has now come across a number of cases, where after a decree is passed, the revenue authorities in complicity with the judgement debtor start giving reports to defeat the interests of the decree holder. In any event the second report clearly shows that possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1553/555 has been given. There is nothing to show that any other land was handed over to the decree holder. Another ground raised is that the original decree could not have been executed since the land had not been clearly identified in the decree sheet and therefore, amendment of the decree was sought for. The original decree was passed in 1988. It was only in the year 2003, 15 years after the passing of the decree that the judgement debtor for the first time raised the plea that the decree does not identify the property. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property. The suit was filed only in respect of one Khasra number, which was 1553/555. The decree though not happily worded but clearly states that suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is accordingly decreed. If the entire judgement is read it is more than apparent that there is no ambiguity in the decree sheet. The decree is for possession of Khasra No. 1553/555. This also appears to be just a ruse on the part of the judgement debtor to delay the proceedings further. There is no merit in both the grounds raised. 4 In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. In case the petitioner has any grievance in respect of any property, which was not subject matter of original suit, he can file a separate suit for redress of his grievance. December 15, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™