IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.435 of 2009 Date of decision : August 11, 2011 Sat Pal …Petitioner. Versus Ved Prakash Mahajan and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Decree of possession of certain property, by way of partition, has been passed, in favour of the respondents- decree holders. Decree holders filed Execution Petition, for delivery of possession to them. Objections were filed by the present petitioner, who is judgment debtor. Those objections have been dismissed, vide order dated 8th May, 2009. Petitioner-JD has challenged the said order, by means of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned trial Court has not given any reason for dismissing the objections. Not only this, learned trial Court has also not cared even to point out, in its order, as to what the objections are. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 4. In view of the abovestated position, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Executing Court, with a direction to pass a reasoned order, with regard to the objections of the petitioner-JD. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 26th September, 2011. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 11, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J