IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.R. No. 130 of 2008. Decided on: 10.7.2008. __________________________________________________ Savitri Devi … Petitioner. Versus Moti Ram … Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’bl Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Theog in Execution Petition No. 23-10 of 2007. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this revision are that the respondent filed a civil suit No. 51/1 of 1996 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Theog for possession. The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class on 25.8.2001. The respondent filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2001 before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla. The appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla on 30.8.2005. The learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and the suit of the respondent was decreed for possession qua Khasra No. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 496/171/1 measuring 16 biswas situate in Chak Bagho-Sandho, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. The respondent filed an Execution Petition No. 23-10 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Theog for execution of the decree passed by the First Appellate Court on 30.8.2005. The petitioner filed objections to the execution petition. The respondent filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Theog dismissed the objections on 21.5.2008 filed by the petitioner and issued a warrant of possession qua the suit land in favour of the Decree Holder, returnable for 23.6.2008. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 21.5.2008. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the order dated 21.5.2008 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He then contended that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Theog has failed to take into consideration the recent settlement operation which has taken place in the area. He further contended that Khasra Nos. 415 and 419 were carved out from Khasra Nos. 429/370/171/1, 429/370/171/2 and 497/370/171/1. I have heard Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The civil suit preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 25.8.2001. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla on 30.8.2005. The learned First Appellate Court has decreed the suit for possession qua Khasra No. 496/171/1, measuring 16 biswas, situate in Chak Bagho-Sandho, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. The petitioner did not hand-over the possession as per the decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. In the execution petition preferred by the respondent for executing the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2005, the petitioner has 3 filed objections. The thrust of the objections filed before the Executing Court was that the respondent-Decree Holder was granted nautor land and in recent settlement operations, Khasra No. 415 and 419, were carved out from Khasra Nos. 429/370/171/1, 429/370/171/2 and 497/370/171/1. The decree has been passed for possession qua Khasra Nos. 496/171/1, measuring 16 biswas. The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla has taken into consideration Tatima Ext. PW4/B and demarcation report Ext. PW4/A. while allowing the appeal. The settlement operations, as per the objections filed by the Judgment Debtor had taken place 7-8 yeas back. If the settlement operations had taken place and certain alterations had taken place in the revenue record, this objection was bound to be taken by the Judgment Debtor before the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. It is clear from the judgments of both the Courts below that no such objection was ever taken before them. The fact whether the Decree Holder has been granted nautor land or not or whether Khasra Nos. 415 and 419 had been carved out from Khasra Nos. 429/370/171/1, 429/370/171/2 and 497/370/171/1 had no bearing on the execution petition. It is settled law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The Executing Court has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the evidence brought on record. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order of the Executing Court dated 21.5.2008. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 10, 2008. (cr)