IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision Petition No. 194 of 2007. Date of Decision: 30th April, 2008. Thakar Dass ….. Petitioner. Versus Sarabjit Singh …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel for respondent. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. This revision has been filed by the decree holder against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, Una dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No. II, Amb District, Una dismissing the application under Order 21 Rule 106 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the petitioner. 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - A number of grounds have been taken by the petitioner in support of the contention that the courts below have acted with material irregularity. The tone and tenor of the averments show that the petitioner is shifting the blame to his counsel and has averred that he had no knowledge regarding the issuance of the warrant of possession against him. He pleads his inability to respond to the summons because of illness. The learned two courts below have found as a fact that the averments made by the petitioner are incorrect. There was no evidence or material on the record to support the contention of the petitioner that his inability to respond to the summons or to be present in court was because of his illness as no medical certificate had been produced on record. It was also found as a fact that the petitioner was aware regarding the pendency of the proceedings, having knowledge of this fact way back in the year 2003 when he was served. The warrants of execution also show that at the time when the property was demarcated, the petitioner was aware about these facts as he was present on the spot when the revenue officer had visited the spot. The report on the summons on 8.9.2004 shows his presence at the spot and his knowledge regarding pendency of the execution petition. Similar is the report dated 17.4.2006. The petitioner had even obtained the stay order against the execution which fact is noticed by the executing court in its order 23.2.2005. In addition, the orders passed by the executing court from time to time show that the petitioner has adopted a recalcitrant attitude and - 3 - has dodged summons/court process deliberately and without any justifiable excuse. The conduct of the petitioner can be described anything except fair. Both the courts having held against the petitioner on facts, as a revisional court it is not open to me to reassess evidence. No illegality or irregularity exists on the record warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction by this court. In these circumstances I do not find any merit in the revision preferred by the petitioner. As observed, the attitude of the petitioner is anything but fair and he has manipulated the process of law under the cover of his old age and purported illness, costs of Rs. 1100/- are imposed upon the petitioner. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Record of courts below be sent back immediately to the learned executing court which shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. All miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed and all miscellaneous orders shall stand vacated. 30th April, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.