IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 46 of 2005 Date of Decision : October 27, 2009 Sh. Tulsi Ram Petitioner Versus Sh. Jagdish Chand and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner herein had filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, H.P., essentially seeking compliance of compromise decree passed by the Court in civil suit No. 67/82, titled as Tulsi Ram versus Salig Ram etc. The application stood dismissed in terms of the impugned order dated 24.3.2004 which stands assailed in the present petition. On 13.5.2005, this Court had passed the following order: 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “13.5.2005. Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. CMP(M) No. 918 of 2004 No one appears for the respondents. Heard. Delay in filing the Civil Revision is condoned. The Civil Revision shall be treated to have been filed in time. The application is disposed of. Civil Revision No. 46 of 2005. The revision petition is taken up for consideration today itself. Be registered. No one appears for the respondents. Even on 5.5.2005, respondent went un- represented. I have seen the impugned order dated 24th March, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur by which he has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-Decree Holder by taking a view that the judgment debtors neither were bound nor obliged to install the thresher in the room marked as ABCD in the site plan attached with the compromise settlement, nor were they prevented from changing the location of the thresher. After Mr. Sandeep Sharma took me through the order dated 10th April, 1991 alongwith the terms of the compromise settlement agreed to between the parties, I feel that the learned Court below has grossly mis-interpreted the said order as well as the said terms and conditions and has thus erroneously come to a conclusion that the respondents-judgment debtors were not bound or 3 obliged to operate the thresher in the room marked ABCD or that they were free to shift its location. The mere purpose of constructing the room ABCD as also the provision that in the walls of this room no ventilator or window would be provided for was because the walls CD and AD were facing towards the house of the petitioner herein. Also that the room would be constructed in 15 days and a local Commissioner would be appointed to inspect the room raises a presumption that the purpose of constructing the room only was to install the thresher therein. Specifically and more particularly the stipulation in the compromise settlement to the effect, “It is also agreed by the parties that till the room ABCD is constructed by the appellants as agreed, they shall not run the thresher in question” clearly stipulates that the only purpose of constructing the room was to ensure that the thresher would be installed and would be operated from within that room and from no where else. The learned Court below, therefore, fell in grave error in totally mis-interpreting the aforesaid order and in coming to erroneous conclusions as indicated hereinabove. The respondents-judgment debtors were duty bound in compliance with the decree in question to ensure that the thresher is installed and it operates only in the room ABCD and no where else. Based on the aforesaid observations, the impugned order is set aisde. As a 4 consequence of the setting aside of the impugned order the matter is remanded to the executing Court for passing fresh, appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Until the learned Court below disposes of the application of the petitioner, it is ordered that the thresher shall not be operated by the respondents. The petition is disposed of. The record be sent back forthwith. CMP No. 116 of 2005 In view of the disposal of the petition, this application shall stand disposed of.” The respondent herein assailed the same before the Apex Court and vide orders dated 14.7.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2980 of 2006, titled as Sh. Jagdish Chand & Anr. versus Sh. Tulsi Ram, the Apex Court set aside the order dated 13.5.2005 on the limited ground that the same had been passed without hearing the respondents herein. As such the present petition is being heard afresh. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record I am of the view that the order passed by this Court on 13.5.2005 needs to be passed in the present petition again. For the very same reasons the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the executing Court for passing fresh orders on the petitioner’s application. The reasons are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 5 Learned counsel for the parties agree to appear before the executing Court on 8.12.2009. Uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court the Trial Court shall positively decide the application within a period of four weeks from the said date. The parties undertake to fully cooperate and not to take any adjournment. Petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 27, 2009 (PK)