IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.75 of 2003. Date of decision: 04.11.2008. Jagat Ram …Petitioner Versus Prem Lal …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been filed by the Decree Holder herein against dismissal of his petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissal of the execution petition preferred by him. The case put up by the Decree Holder was that pursuant to compromise Ex.PA entered into between the parties, the Judgment Debtor had not complied with the terms of the compromise which forms the foundation of the decree. He accordingly prayed for the detention of the Judgment Debtor under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code and execution of decree in accordance with law. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 Learned executing Court tried both the petitions together and during the pendency, also appointed a Local Commissioner who submitted his report Ex.PB. On the basis of this report, the Court decided against the petitioner on the two issues i.e. one in the execution petition and second in the proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32, holding that the relief sought for by the petitioner-applicant in both the application and petition cannot be granted until and unless the Judgment Debtor is given an opportunity or has an opportunity to obey the decree and the terms of the compromise. The operative part reads:- “18. … … … … … … Hence the relief sought by petitioner/applicant in both the applications cannot be granted until or unless DH is given opportunity or has opportunity to obey the decree and compromise. Accordingly issue No.1 is in both the petitions stands decided against the D.H. … … … … … … … … … However, it is relevant to observe that until or unless J.D. is given opportunity to remove foundation of the latrine which he has agreed to remove till then no such effective order can be taken against J.D. and it is deemed just and fit to direct the J.d. to remove the foundation of the walls of latrine, which he has dismantled … … … … … …” 3 Accordingly, on the basis of this finding the Court directs that the Judgment Debtor will remove the foundation within a period of one month, failing which the Decree Holder is at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In so far as the first aspect i.e. relief under Order 21 Rule 32 is concerned, since the report submitted by the Local Commissioner, which is detailed and cannot be faulted with, no action can be taken against the Judgment Debtor, more-so, in view of the finding of the learned executing Court that the Judgment Debtor has had no opportunity to obey the decree. This is the only basis on which relief has been denied to the petitioner herein. However, if the directions of the executing Court have not been complied with, the petitioner- Decree Holder would be at liberty to institute such other and further proceedings in accordance with law against the Judgment Debtor. It also cannot be denied that a compromise Ex.PA having been entered into between the parties, forms the basis of the rights granted and obligations of both the parties. In this view of the matter, if there still exists any part of the compromise which has not been complied with or if the terms of the compromise are violated in future by the Judgment Debtor, it will be open to the Decree Holder to institute fresh proceedings in accordance 4 with law. This petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. November 4, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.