IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 45 of 2010. Date of decision: 17.5.2010. Mohhamad Jabbar ….. Petitioner. Vs. Punjab Wakf Board …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Avinash Jaryal, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The judgement debtor has filed this revision against the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.2, Shimla in Execution Application No. 27/10 of 2006. The Civil Suit No. 138/1 of 2000 was decreed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class (2) Shimla on 22.7.2003 and a decree for mandatory injunction was passed against the judgement debtor. He was directed to remove the double storeyed wooden khokha measuring 77 Sq. meters constructed inside the main gate adjacent to the hall of Jama Masjid as depicted in Ex. PW 2/A and hand over the vacant possession of the same to decree holder. 2. The execution application No. 27/10 of 2006 was filed for executing the decree dated 22.7.2003. The judgement debtor filed Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… objections under Section 47 CPC and submitted that decree is not executable for proper identification of the suit premises. The decree holder has nothing to do with the possession of the suit premises as the judgement debtor has been inducted as a tenant by the committee of Jama Masjid, Shimla. It has been alleged that the decree is not executable. On the objections, the learned executing court has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether objections are sustainable? OPJD 2. Relief. 3. The learned executing court has observed in the impugned order that judgement debtor has mainly resisted the execution on the ground that he is in possession of the suit property as a tenant on payment of rent and decree holder has nothing to do with the same. In order to substantiate the objections, the judgement debtor did not prefer to lead any evidence. In absence of evidence, the objection of the judgement debtor that he is a tenant of committee of Jama Masjid and not of the decree holder is without any foundation. Moreover, this question now cannot be gone into by the executing court in view of the decree passed against the judgement debtor on 22.7.2003. There is no merit in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. CMP No. 439 of 2010. 4. Infructuous in view of the disposal of the main petition. May 17, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.