IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No. 483 of 2002. Reserved on: 4.8.2008. Decided on: 25.8. 2008. __________________________________________________ Sohan Lal. … Petitioner. Versus Duni Chand … Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Court No.2, Rohru in Objection Petition in the Execution Petition No. 16-10 of 2001. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision petition are that the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for convenience sake, had filed Civil Suit No. 103/1 of 1991 in the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Rohru. The suit was decreed on 31.12.1993. The decree for possession was passed with respect to the land entered in Khasra Nos. 1199, 1201, 1202, 1205 and 1213, kita 5, measuring 0-22-30 hectares situated in Chak Sheel, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.. The Decree Holder filed Execution Petition on 24.3.2001 for the execution of decree dated 31.12.1993. The petitioner-Judgment Debtor, hereinafter referred to as the Judgment Debtor filed objection petition before the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 learned Sub Judge on 27.7.2001. The Decree Holder filed reply to the objection petition on 23.8.2001. The objections preferred by the Judgment Debtor were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge on 12.11.2001. The Judgment Debtor filed revision petition No. 360 of 2001 in this Court. The revision petition was allowed on 12.7.2002. The matter was remanded to the learned Sub Judge. The learned Sub Judge framed issues on 12.8.2002. The Judgment Debtor had examined 11 witnesses in support of his claim. The Decree Holder examined himself and Guman Singh. The objections preferred by the Judgment Debtor were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge on 9.12.2002. The Judgment Debtor has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 9.12.2002. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the matter stood compromised between the parties on the basis of Ext. OW2/A. Mr. Verma then contended that a sum of Rs. 6000/- had already been paid to the Decree Holder and the decree could not be executed. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order dated 9.12.2002. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. The judgment and decree is dated 31.12.1993. The execution petition was filed on 24.3.2001. The Judgment Debtor has filed objections, as noticed above. It was, inter-alia, contended by the Judgment Debtor in the objections that the Decree Holder had agreed to sell the suit land to the Judgment Debtor for Rs. 9,000/-. The Judgment Debtor paid Rs. 500/- as an advance to the Decree Holder. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 5500/- was paid as an advance to the Decree Holder and he promised to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the Judgment Debtor. Thereafter, the Decree Holder executed affidavit Ext. OW2/A on 15.3.1994. However, the sale deed was not executed by the Decree Holder. The sum and 3 substance of the reply filed by the Decree Holder to the objections was that no agreement to sell was executed by him. It was further averred in the reply that the Decree Holder has never agreed to sell the property in question for a sum of Rs. 9000/-. The Judgment Debtor had examined Smt. Kanta Devi, Shri M.K. Sharma, Shri Brij Lal, Shri Roshan Lal son of Shri Att Ram, Shri Roshan Lal son of Shri Mangat Ram, Hukam Chand, Kirpa Ram, Rajinder Sharma, Man Singh and Mohan Kalta, as his witnesses. The Decree Holder has examined himself and Shri Guman Singh. As per the statements of the witnesses led by the Judgment Debtor, the land in question was sold to him by the Decree Holder for a sum of Rs. 9,000/- and the affidavit was also sworn on 15.3.1994. It has come in the statements of the witnesses that initially a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 5500/- was paid and the remaining Rs. 3000/- was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is admitted by the parties that no sale deed was ever executed as per contents of OW2/A dated 15.3.1994. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the Decree Holder has ever taken possession of the land in question. The decree was always executable by the Decree Holder and the same could not be rendered nugatory/otiose on the basis of affidavit Ext.OW2/A. The original decree always remains intact and could not be varied on the basis of Ext. OW2/A. It has not been stated in the affidavit what was to happen on failure of the Decree Holder to execute the sale deed. The decree was never extinguished as contended by Mr. Verma and was executable. It is clear from the language of the affidavit dated 15.3.1994 that the Decree Holder has only undertaken to execute the sale deed and thereafter to get the mutation in favour of the Judgment Debtor. It is further stated in the affidavit that in case the Decree Holder failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the affidavit, the Judgment Debtor shall be 4 free to file the civil suit. Admittedly, no sale deed has been executed between the parties and no separate suit as contemplated in the affidavit dated 15.3.1994 has been filed. Moreover, Shri Sadhu Ram-Decree Holder, while appearing as RW-1, has denied that he has sworn any affidavit and he had compromised the matter with the Judgment Debtor. He has denied specifically his thumb mark on the affidavit. He has also denied that a sum of Rs. 6000/- was ever paid to him by the Judgment Debtor. It is settled law by now that once a decree becomes final, the Decree Holder gets right to execute the same. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the revision is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. August 25, 2008. (cr)