IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No. 60 of 2010. Reserved on: 22.11.2010. Decided on 29.11.2010. _____________________________________________________ Geeta Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- Om Swaroop and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.06.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in C.M.A. No. 72 of 1998. 2. The material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Decree-holders’), had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to land measuring 89 Kanals, comprised in Khata No. 1, Khatauni No. 26, Khasra No. 1 min, situated at Mohal Chamar Palroo against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the judgment debtor). The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 14.04.1983. The same had 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - attained finality since the judgment dated 14.04.1983 was up-held up to this Court. The decree-holders have instituted a petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking action against the judgment debtor by filing C.M.A. No. 72 of 1998 on 18.04.1998. 3. The petition was resisted by the judgment debtor. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur allowed the petition on 26.06.2007 and ordered the property of the judgment debtor to be attached on filing of list of property within five days and the report was called for 18.07. 2007 for taking action against the judgment debtor. 4. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal against the order dated 26.06.2007 before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala on 09.07.2007. The same was rejected by him being not maintainable on 30th March, 2010. It is in these circumstances that the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.06.2007 5. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the order dated 26.06.2007 is not in conformity with the principles of law. According to him, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, District Kangra has mis-construed the oral as well as documentary evidence. 6. Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order dated 26.06.2007. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. - 3 - 8. The decree-holders have placed on record the copy of order dated 26.06.2007, passed in C.M.A. No. 72 of 1998, whereby vide Ex. A-1, dated 14.04.1983, the suit qua land measuring 89 Kanals Khata No. 1, Khatauni No. 26, Khasra No. 1 min, situated in Mohal Chamar Palroo, Mouja Lambagaon, Tehsil Jasinghpur, District Kangra was decreed for declaration with consequential relief of injunction, declaring that decree holders were owners in possession of the suit land and the judgment debtor/respondent was restrained from interfering with the possession of the suit land. The judgment debtor had filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed; and the R.S.A. preferred against the same was also dismissed as per the pleadings by this Court. 9. Decree-holder, Shri Om Swroop has appeared as AW- 1. He deposed that the decree was passed in their favour and the same was up-held up to this Court. According to him, the judgment debtor was forcibly interfering over the suit land without any right, title or interest and, thus, she has dis-obeyed the decree. 10. AW-2, Shri Onkar Chand and AW-3, Shri Rikhi Ram have supported the version of AW-1. According to them, the suit land was in possession of the decree-holders. 11. RW-1, Shri Jagdish Chand, General Power of Attorney has appeared on behalf of judgment debtor, Geeta Kumari. According to him, he purchased land in the year, 1973 in the name of his wife out of Khata No. 1, Khatauni No. 26, Khasra No. 1 min. According to him, they were in possession of the aforesaid land. In cross-examination, he has admitted that in land - 4 - comprising Khata No. 1, Khatoni No. 26, Khasra No. 1 min (89 Kanals), he and his wife had no concern. According to him, his wife had concerned with two numbers, regarding which no decree was passed. He also admitted that the suit land comprised of Khasra Nos. 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 185, 190, 192 and 194. 12. According to Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, the decree-holders have failed to connect the suit land comprised in Khatoni No. 26, Khasra No. 1 min (89 Kanals) with Khasra Nos. 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 185, 190, 192 and 194. According to him, the decree-holders have not produced any sketch-map or Aks Shajra to show the exact location of the suit land. This plea cannot be accepted, since RW-1 in his statement has admitted that the suit land correspond to Khasra Nos. 182, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 193, 185, 190, 192 and 194. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma has also argued that the decree being vague, could not be implemented. This plea merits rejection. The executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The parties have also agitated the matter earlier in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class (I), Palampur, District Kangra. The applications preferred by the parties under Order 8 Rule 9, C.P.C., under Order 18 Rule 17- A and under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure were rejected by the Sub Judge, Ist Class (I), Palampur, District Kangra on 16.07.2002. It is apparent that the judgment debtor has adopted dilatory tactics to avoid execution of the decree under one pretext or the other. 13. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no illegality or procedural impropriety in the - 5 - order dated 26.06.2007, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. 14. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge November 29, 2010. (bhupender) - 6 -