IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.148 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 9, 2011 1. Jagdish Chand son of late Shri Ganga Ram, 2. Kashmiro Devi wife of Swaran Singh son of Ranu Ram, 3. Kulwant Singh son of Shri Swaran Singh, 4. Vijay Kumar son of Shri Swaran Singh 5. Rajinder Kumar son of late Shri Situ, 6. Rattani Devi wife of late Shri Situ, All residents of village Balu, Tappa Mehalta, PO Bharthian, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. ..Petitioners/DH Versus 1. Braham Dass alias Brahmu son of Giffo Devi, wife of Chinto, 2. Kishan Chand son of Giffo Devi wife of Chinto, 3. Dharmu son of Chinto, 4. Smt. Parveena Devi wife of late Shri Madan Lal, 5. Sapna, daughter, 6. Neelima, daughter, 7. Raj Kumari, daughter, 8. Reema, daughter, 9. Meeran, daughter, 10. Manoj Kumar, son, 11. Tari son of Chintu, 12. Manchand alias Filli, son of Chintu, É2É 13. Sudesh, daughter, 14. Veena, 15. Susme daughter of Smt. Shakuntla Devi wife of Shri Dharmu, 16. Sandeep, son of Smt. Shakuntla Devi wife of Shri Dharmu, 17. Simro Devi wife of Shri Brahmoo son of Chinto, All residents of village Balu, Tappa Mehalta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. ..Respondents/JDs Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 31.12.2007 passed in CMA No.6 of 1999, CMA No.1 of 1997, CMA No.53/1995, CMA No.167 of 1994 by the ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No.1 Hamirpur, vide which the ld. Civil Judge has dismissed the applications of the petitioners/decree holders under Order 21 rule 32 of CPC for punishing the respondents for their intentional violation of decree. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate. __________________________________________ Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É3É Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners, in whose favour a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction has been passed by the trial Court, are aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2007, whereby their CMA Nos. 6/1999, 1/1997, 53/1995 and 167/1994, which they had filed alleging disobedience of the said decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, have been dismissed. 3. As per decree, which was passed in the year 1986, respondents have been restrained from interfering on portion of land bearing Khasra No.327. Petitioners alleged that even after the passing of decree, which had been affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, respondents had been interfering in their land, which was the subject matter of the decree, by digging the land and stacking cow-dung and tethering their dog on the land, so as to prevent the petitioners from utilizing the same. 4. Respondents denied the allegations by filing replies. 5. Learned trial Court framed issue, whether the respondents had disobeyed the decree, and after recording the evidence of the parties, concluded that there was no interference. Consequently, all the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed. Petitioners are É4É aggrieved by the order of dismissal of their applications and have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that report of Local Commissioner, which is though referred to in the impugned order of the Executing Court, has not been considered. According to her, report clearly indicates that respondents have been interfering in the land, in question, even after the passing of the decree. 7. It is mentioned in the impugned order that petitioners had tendered in evidence Local Commissioner’s report Ext. P8, but the order does not record as to what did the Local Commissioner report and whether the said report is relevant or not, and if relevant, whether it substantiates the allegation of the petitioners or not. 8. Consequently, present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to Executing Court, with a direction to decide all the aforesaid CMAs afresh, by taking into consideration the entire evidence, including Local Commissioner’s report(s), if relevant. A copy of this order be sent to Executing Court, which shall issue notice to the parties and decide the CMAs afresh, in terms of the observations made hereinabove. 9. Disposed of. December 9, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J