IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR 40 of 2010. Decided on September 15, 2010 Jagdish Chand ..Petitioner. Versus Mohan Singh & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Sh. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sh. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. Decree for possession of certain property was passed in favour of respondent No. 1 –DH and against respondents 2 to 26 by the trial Court. Respondent No. 1 Mohan Singh filed an execution petition. Petitioner, who was not a party to the suit or to the execution petition, filed a petition, claiming that he was in possession of a portion of the property, in respect of which decree had been passed and he being not a party to the case, was not bound by that decree. He prayed for protection of his Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - possession, which he claimed to be adverse. Petition was filed under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 and 101 CPC. Executing Court dismissed that petition, vide order dated 7.12.2006. Petitioner filed an appeal under Order 43 CPC against that order before the District Judge, which was dismissed, on merits, by the Additional District Judge, vide order dated 24.2.2010. Present revision petition is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties. 4. As a matter of fact, order of executing Court, dismissing the objection petition of the present petitioner, was appealable as a decree, in view of the provision of Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC, and not as an order, under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. In any case, when the appeal has been heard and disposed of on merits, this Court may not go into this technicality. Now, when the order of the executing Court was appealable as a decree, impugned order of the Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal, is required to be treated as judgment, dismissing the appeal against the decree of the executing Court. If that is so, present revision petition is not maintainable. Only an appeal, on some substantial questions of law, could have been filed in this Court. - 3 - 5. On hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that no substantial question of law is involved. Only the finding of the executing Court that the petitioner is not in possession on any portion of subject matter of the decree, has been assailed. Therefore, civil revision, even if treated as RSA, is liable to be dismissed, as no substantial question of law is involved. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications shall also stand dismissed. September 10, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.