IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.428 of 2002. Date of decision: 18.03.2009. Lachhmi Singh …Petitioner Versus Yogender Singh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner-Judgment Debtor has filed this petition against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.2, Rohru, in proceedings under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial Court on the application made by the Decree Holder, concluded that the Judgment Debtor was guilty of breach of disobedience of the decree as passed against the petitioner herein. It is trite that Order 21 Rule 32 is to be invoked in case of disobedience of a decree. In the present case it was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 the duty of the Decree Holder to have established that the path as claimed has not been provided or is being obstructed by the Judgment Debtor. The statement of AW-2, Patwari, shows that that he did not associate the Judgment Debtor at the time when he prepared the spot inspection report stating therein that there was a purported obstruction on the path. This was itself sufficient to have put the learned executing Court to notice that the purported disobedience has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court was required to determine this fact before proceeding to take punitive measures against the petitioner- Judgment Debtor. This petition is accordingly allowed. The order under challenge in this revision is set aside. It is clarified that this would not preclude the Decree Holder from proving that subsequent to the filing of this petition, the path has either been not provided by the Judgment Debtor or that he is in breach of the decree and that the path has been blocked etc. Needless to say that such obstruction, disobedience etc. will be proved in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. March 18, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.