IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1122 of 2005 (M/S) Arun Kumar Peter Joel Singh - Petitioner Vs. Civil Judge (Senior Division) & another- Respondents. Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the respondent no.1, Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. The parties submit and agree that this petition be disposed of today itself and the following agreed order be passed. The petition is disposed of finally. Decree was originally passed by the trial court on 11th April, 2002 whereby the defendant in the suit (respondent no.2 herein) was restrained from occupying the property in question and was ordered and directed to demolish the latrine and cow shed at his expense, which were existing over the said land. This decree was amended ex-parte, without any notice to the defendant on 19th February, 2003 by including a money claim of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.20,000/-(twenty thousand), which the defendant was ordered to pay to the plaintiff. By the impugned order passed on 24th August, 2005 the application filed by respondent no.2 was allowed. In this application the respondent had prayed only for the setting aside of the amendment in the original decree dated 11.04.02 carried out vide order dated 19th February, 2003. Admittedly respondent no.2 in the said application had not prayed for setting aside of the original decree passed on 11th April, 2002. That decree had attained finality. Therefore, there was no question of staying the execution of the decree as had originally been passed on 11th April, 2002 granting prohibitory injunction in favour of petitioner-plaintiff as well as mandatory injunction with respect to demolition of latrine and cow shed. The aforesaid original decree as passed on 11th April, 2002 being executable, the petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to put that decree into execution and the learned court below is hereby directed to take all steps for its due execution . To that extent the impugned order is set aside as well as modified. ( V.K.Gupta,C.J.) 04.07.2008 JPT