IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.R. No. 44 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.6.2011 Anil Sharma ….. Petitioner. Vs. Ashwani Chandla and Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : None. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). This revision has been directed against the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.4, Shimla in Exectuion Petition No.13/10 of 1999/96. The learned Civil Judge decreed the Civil Suit No.17/1 of 88 on 19.12.1990 and directed the defendants to remove the structure from the common passage comprised in Khasra No.410/246/1. It is admitted case that khasra Nos.500, 527 and 564 are the new khasra numbers of old khasra No.410/246/1. The petitioner filed the objections against demarcation in the executing Court and also took the stand that since petitioner Anil Sharma has filed an application for correction of revenue entries with respect to suit land before Settlement Officer and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… that application is still pending, therefore, execution petition is not maintainable till the decision of correction application. 2. The report dated 1.9.2007 of the Local Commissioner was challenged by filing objections mainly on the grounds that demarcation has not been conducted in accordance with the instructions. This objection of the judgment debtor has already been considered in judgment dated 25.8.2008 in CR No.181 of 2006 and the judgment debtor was not allowed to take this objection. The judgment debtor cannot be allowed to reagetate the same point 3. The Executing Court is required to execute the decree and the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The petitioner has filed application before Settlement Authority for correction of entries of the suit land which is no ground to postpone the execution of decree. The Executing Court has considered the entire matter and rejected the contention of the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. June 23, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.