IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 7 of 2010. Decided on May 28, 2010. Kamal Kishore …Petitioner. Versus Naresh Chand & another ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). Heard and gone through the record. 2. A decree of mandatory injunction was passed in favour of one Falthu Ram. Present petitioner, claiming himself to be the successor of said Falthu Ram, on the basis of a Will, filed a petition to execute that decree. Executing Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner has not been able to prove that Falthu Ram had executed a valid Will in his favour. Also, it has been held that disobedience of decree of mandatory injunction is not there. 3. Before recording a finding to the effect that the petitioner has not been able to establish his claim as successor of Falthu Ram, on the basis of Will, executing Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Court ought to have allowed the petitioner to prove this plea. Executing Court having not done so, impugned order, dated 25.8.2008, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the executing Court, with a direction to decide the same afresh, in the light of the aforesaid observations. 4. Petition is disposed of. May 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.