IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 171 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.5.2011 Bishan Lal (dead) through LRs and others ….Petitioners. Versus Ankita Devi and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the LRs of petitioner No.1: Mr. Paras Doger, Advocate. For the petitioner No.2: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents No. 4 and 6: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.5.2010 whereby the learned Executing Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-judgement debtors for amending the objections. 2. The undisputed facts are that a decree for specific performance of contract was passed in favour of late Shri Prem Chand and against the judgement debtors. When the execution petition was filed by Shri Prem Chand, an objection was 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 raised that the decree holder Prem Chand had entered into a post decretal compromise whereby he had received back the earnest money of Rs.35,000/-. In the objections it was pleaded that this receipt has been misplaced. 3. Now, an application has been filed for amendment of the objection petition in which two amendments are sought. The first is that the receipt has been traced out and that the said receipt was written by Shri J.S.Randhawa, Advocate, Kangra on instructions of deceased Prem Chand in the presence of some witnesses. In my view this amendment is not necessary for disposal of the case. There were already pleadings that receipt had been misplaced. If the receipt has been traced out there is nothing which prevents the judgement debtors from proving the receipt in accordance with law. However, the amendment which is sought virtually introduces evidence into pleadings which cannot be permitted. 4. As far as the second amendment is concerned the same is totally misplaced. The Execution Petition was undoubtedly filed by Shri 3 Prem Chand and even two of his legal representatives are on record and his estate is duly represented and in case at any stage it is found that any other legal heirs has any share that would be a dispute inter se the heirs of Prem Chand and the judgement debtors cannot stop the execution proceedings on this ground. Therefore, the petition is rejected. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Executing court on 6th July, 2011. The learned Executing Court is directed to dispose of the objection petition latest by 31st March, 2012. No costs. 30th May, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge