IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 207 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.9.2010 Tilak Raj …. Petitioner Versus Ram Chand Kaushal & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.S.R.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the contempt proceedings filed by the petitioner against the respondents have been rejected with costs assessed at Rs.1000/-. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Sh.Ashok Gautam had raised a loan from the UCO Bank. The petitioner herein had stood guarantee for 2 repayment of the loan. The UCO Bank filed Civil Suit No.41 of 1987 in this Court for recovery of the amount due from Sh.Ashok Gautam. The present petitioner being guarantor was also arrayed as defendant in the suit. This Court passed orders in the Civil Suit in the year 1995 ordering the attachment of the property of the defendants including the present petitioner. The property of the petitioner which was attached was 1/6th share comprised in Khata No.219, Khatauni No.455, Khasra Nos.456, 459 and 460 Kita 03 measuring area 94.00 sq.mtrs., 1/7th share in Khata No.219, Khasra No.454 measuring 206 sq.mtrs., 1/7th share in Khata No.87, Khasra No.796 measuring 143 sq.mtrs. and 1/7th share in Khata No.9, Khasra No.335 and 345 measuring 297.40 sq.mtrs. It is apparent that after the decree was passed, execution proceedings were filed in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Kangra. During the execution proceedings, sometime in the year 2003, the present petitioner made payment of the entire decretal amount and prayed that his property be released from attachment. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite orders being passed by the Courts below, the revenue 3 officials including the contemnors have not complied with the said orders and resultantly, his property has not been released from attachment. 4. I have gone through the original record of the execution proceedings and I find that two release warrants were issued. The first release warrant is dated 4th June, 2003 and the only property of the petitioner mentioned in the release warrant is that comprised in Khata No.13, measuring 297 hectares situated in Mohal Jawalamukhi, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. In the second release warrant issued on 5th October, 2005, the same land is mentioned but the area is shown as 297.40 hectares. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not comply with these orders. 5. The explanation of the respondents is that there were no clear-cut orders of release and when the release orders were passed, the report Waquati was issued. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner with costs assessed at Rs.1000/-. 6. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot be found to be at fault. He has paid the entire 4 decretal amount and had a right to get all his properties released from execution proceedings. In fact, he through his counsel had filed a detailed application praying for release of the entire property. However, the Court had issued release warrants only in respect of one property that too without mentioning correct share of the petitioner. In such eventuality, though I find no fault of the petitioner, no contempt has been committed by the respondents. It is apparent that the petitioner is also not at fault. 7. Therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Judge, Kangra to ensure that within 15 days of the receipt of this order, proper release warrants are issued directing the release of the property of the petitioner attached in the suit and execution proceedings. In the said release warrants, complete description and share of the property of the petitioner, which was attached, shall be given to enable the revenue authorities to comply with the orders. The revenue authorities within 30 days of the receipt of the release warrants to be issued by the District and Sessions Judge shall ensure that the 5 revenue record is corrected and the property is fully released from attachment. 8. With these observations, the order of the ld. Court below is modified and the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. September 7, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge