IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.362 of 2011 Date of decision : October 10, 2011 Devki Nand and others …Petitioners. Versus Raja Rana Yogendra Chandra …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) A decree for possession was passed in favour of respondent Raja Rana Yogendra Chandra of Jubbal, in the year 1988, in respect of land measuring 2 bigha 5 biswa, as described in judgment Annexure P-2. 2. It appears that after the passing of the aforesaid decree in favour of the above-named respondent and against the predecessor of the present petitioners, a suit was filed by the predecessor of the petitioners, seeking declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, in respect of the same very property, as was the subject matter of Annexure P-2. That matter remained pending in the trial Court and thereafter in the first Appellate Court and also in this Court, by way of Regular Second Appeal, till 30th June, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2006, when it was finally disposed of vide judgment dated 30th June, 2006 (rendered in RSA No.255 of 2006, titled Hardyal Singh and others versus State of H.P. and another). That suit, filed by the predecessor of the present petitioners, was dismissed right upto this Court. 3. Respondent, in whose favour decree was passed, for possession of the above-described land, vide judgment Annexure P-2, thereafter filed Execution Petition. Objections were filed by the petitioners. Those objections have been dismissed vide order dated 27th July, 2011, Annexure P-5. Petitioners are aggrieved by this order of dismissal of their objections and have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the earlier decree for possession having been passed in the year 1988 and the said decree having not been appealed against and having thus attained finality, in the year 1988, could have been executed only within 12 years of its passing or say upto the year 2000 and the Execution Petition having been filed even after the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal, in the year 2006, was clearly barred by time. Such an objection had not been raised in the objection petition, because the impugned order Annexure P-5 does not make even a whisper of such an …3… objection. However, it was for the Executing Court itself to have noticed this kind of technicality, especially when it is being submitted on behalf of the petitioners that such an objection was raised during the course of arguments, at the time of passing of impugned order Annexure P-5. In any case, when the matters, regarding limitation, jurisdiction, etc. are required to be considered by the Court itself, such being matters between the Court and the party, filing petition or suit, it was the duty of the Executing Court to have examined this aspect of the matter. 6. In view of the abovestated position, present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Executing Court to decide the question whether the Execution Petition is within time or not, before proceeding further in the matter of execution of decree. Pending application also stands disposed of. Copy dasti. October 10, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J