IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 471 of 2009. Date of decision: 10.8.2010 Nazeera Begum and others. (LRs) Petitioners. Versus Chhanga @ Pratap Singh Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Bhawna Dutta, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The brief facts of the case are that Chhanga alias Pratap Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner praying that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be passed restraining the defendant (petitioner herein) from raising any construction or changing the nature of land comprised in Khata No.82, Khatauni No.333, Khasra Nos. 88, 89 and 90 measuring 0-31-36 HM situate in Mahal Lahru, Mauza and Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. 2. The suit was decreed in the following terms:- “The suit of the plaintiff succeeds and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any construction or changing the nature of the land in suit, is 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.” 3. The plaintiff filed an Execution Petition stating therein that the defendant had raised construction on the suit land after the passing of the decree. The defendant does not deny that he had raised construction on the land regarding which decree has been passed against him. He now raises other pleas that this land was purchased by him from Daya Ram and Vakil Singh and they were necessary parties to the suit. These objections should have been raised by him in the suit and cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage. The defendant himself does not deny that the alleged sales were made prior to the passing of the judgement and decree against him. Therefore, it was for him to have brought this fact to the notice of the Court and he cannot be permitted to raise this issue for the first time in execution proceedings. It is settled law that an Executing Court cannot go behind the merits of the judgement and the decree. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 10th August, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™