IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 25 of 2003 Date of Decision : August 4, 2009 Chaitri and others Petitioners Versus Khalelu and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. B. K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioners For the respondent : Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel for respondents No. 9 to 12. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) After the matter was heard for some time the learned counsel for the parties agreed for the passing of the following order: With consent the impugned order dated 16.1.2003 passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in Execution Petition No. 62 of 1998, titled as Khalelu and others versus Radha Devi and others is set aside for the reason that the correct remedy for the respondent herein was to move an application under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 and more particularly Section 153. As a corollary thereof 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 all consequential actions taken pursuant to the impugned order shall automatically stand cancelled and recalled. The Civil Court had passed the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1998 in Civil Suit No. 71/92, titled as Khalelu and others versus Radha Devi and others to the following effect: “Plaint presented on the 22nd day of April, 1992. This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me (D.S. Khenal) Sub Judge Ist Class, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP) in the presence of Sh. Ganga Singh Thakur, Advocate for the plaintiffs and S/Sh. D. N. Pathak, H.C. Sharma, J. S. Chandel and R. D. Chaudhary Advocates for the defendants. It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed to the effect that plaintiffs alongwith defendants Chaitri widow of deceased Nandu, Roshan Lal, Shyam Lal sons of deceased Nandu and Kamla Devi, Krishna Devi and Kanta Devi daughters of deceased Nandu are owners in possession of Khasra Nos. 1833, 1834, 1836, 1837, 1855, 1859, 1860, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1879, 1861, 1865 kita 13 measuring 18-11-0 bighas, Settlement of 1930-31 Muhal Mahadev, corresponding khasra Nos. 1242, 1252, 1297, 1298, 1302, 1227, 1229, 1243, 1303, 1253, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1304, 1228, 1230 kitas 16 measuring 15-8-16 bighas Settlement of 1964-65, corresponding khasra Nos. 1242, 1252, 1297, 1298, 1302, 1253, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1791/1304, 1243, 1789/1303 measuring 12-18- 12 bighas, Mohal Mahadev, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP) and that the defendants No. 1 to 5 are owners in possession of khasra Nos. 20, 23, 142, 145 3 of Mohal Bharjawanu, Tehsil Sunderngar and Khasra NOs. 1615 and 1778 measuring 1-14-0 bighas Mohal Mahadev (Settlement of 1930-31) and corresponding to Khasra Nos. 1220, 1287, 1289, 1291, 1689, 1719, 1121, 1288, 1290, 1292, 1690, 1702, kita 12 measuring 7-19-10 bighas, situated in Mohal Bharjawanu and Khasra Nos. 1227, 1229, 1228, 1230, measuring 1-12-0 bighas, in Mohal Mahadev, Tehsil Sundernagar (Settlement of 1964-65) corresponding to khasra Nos. 744, 746, 1169, 1173, 745, 749, 750, 1168, 1174, measuring 7-14-19 bighas in Mohal Bharjawanu in consolidation proceedings and khasra Nos. 1228, 1230, 1227 and 1229 measuring 1-12-0 bighas in Mohal Mahadev, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi (HP) on the basis of partition having taken place interse them. It is further decreed that the defendants are restrained permanently from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs qua the suit land as mentioned above, and it is further ordered that xxxxxxx do also pay Rs. xxxxxxxx the costs of this suit.” It shall be open for the respondents herein to file appropriate application for getting the decree executed qua the defendants-Judgment Debtors in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C., as the Decree Holder had filed an application to the limited extent of getting the revenue entries corrected pursuant to the aforesaid decree of declaration. Liberty granted to the Decree Holder to move before the appropriate authorities for getting the entries incorporated in the 4 revenue record in accordance with the aforesaid judgment and decree. The same shall be done in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed off accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 4, 2009 (PK)