IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 138 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.5.2008 Nimo Devi and another Petitioners. Versus Bhimi Ram Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondent: Nemo. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Shimla, dated 29.2.2008, whereby he has allowed an application filed by the plaintiff and amended the decree sheet. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff Bhimi Ram S/o Puran Dass filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners Nimo Devi and Bhimi Ram son of late Sh. Dharma. The plaintiff in the said suit claimed that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatoani No. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 15/16, Khasra NOs. 120, 454/382/143, Khita 2 measuring 0-12 biswas situated at Mauza-Bathora, Tehsil-Suni, District Shimla, having purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 17.5.1986. In the said suit, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit? OPD. 4. Relief. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. The operative portion of the judgement reads as follows:- “In view of my findings and observations as discussed above, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.” The decree sheet reads as follows:- “This suit coming on this 30th day of August, 1997 for final disposal before me (J.K.Sharma) Sub Judge, Ist Class (1), Shimla, in the presence of Shri D.P.Bhardwaj, Advocate for plaintiff and Shri Y.P.Sood, Advocate for defendants. It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.” Thereafter, the plaintiff/decree-holder filed execution petition on the ground that the respondents 3 are interfering in his possession in violation of the decree passed. Objection was raised that after passing of the decree, the parties have compromised the matter and Khasra No. 270 had been left to the decree holder and Khasra No. 308 to the judgement debtors. This matter was not gone into by the executing Court but the execution petition was dismissed only on the ground that land has not been identified and the applicants should have placed on record some Tatima/Demarcation report to show that the judgement debtors had constructed the house over the land with regard to which the decree of injunction had been passed against them. Thereafter, Civil Revision was filed in this Court, which was rejected on 2.6.2004 on the ground that the decree holder had failed to link the land comprised in Khasra No. 308 with the original land qua which decree for permanent injunction had been passed. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application before the trial Court praying that the decree be amended and in the decree sheet the Khasra numbers qua which the decree had been passed should be mentioned. This application has been allowed and the decree has been amended in the following terms:- “In view of my findings and observations, as discussed above, the suit of 4 the plaintiffs, is hereby decreed with costs. The defendants are permanently restrained from causing any interference including raising any construction in the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 15/16, Khasra NO. 120, 454/382/142 kita 2 measuring 0-12 biswas situated at mauza Bathora, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla. Decree sheet be amended in accordance with the amended judgement and specific mention of the relief granted be made therein. The file after due compliance be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open Court today i.e. 30th day of August, 1997 (Amended on 29th day of February, 2008).” Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that in fact the decree holder had compromised the decree after the same had been passed and therefore no appeal was filed by the defendants/judgement debtors. Assuming this contention is correct, then also this does not have any material effect on the case. By merely correcting the decree how does this affect the right of the defendants/judgement debtors to argue that the matter was compromised. The amendment made in the decree is only clarificatory in nature and identifies the land qua which the decree has been passed. If the petitioners had wanted to challenge the same earlier, they were free to challenge it. Neither this Court nor the trial Court had dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the 5 decree is a vague. It was dismissed on the ground that the decree holder had failed to identify the land. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition which is rejected. 28th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™