Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Mohil & Another vs Of on 22 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Civil Revision No.185 of 2024
a/w Civil Revision No.186 of
.
2024
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Decided on: 22.04.2026
1. Civil Revision No.185 of 2024
Anil Mohil & another ....Petitioners
Versus
of
Paritosh Chauhan & others ...Respondents
2. Civil Revision No.186 of 2024
rt
Anil Mohil & another ....Petitioners
Versus
Paritosh Chauhan & others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
CR No.185 of 2025 For the petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
CR No.186 of 2024
For the petitioners: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 2 Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
.
Respondents No.5 to 8 are proceeded
against ex-pate.
Romesh Verma, Judge
Civil Revision No.185 of 2025
of
The present petition arises out of the order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., rt dated 26.09.2024, whereby the objections as filed by the present petitioners under the provisions of Section 47 of CPC have been ordered to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/decree holder filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nahan on 04.06.1993. The learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Nahan vide its judgment and decree dated 21.09.1999 decreed the suit as filed by the plaintiff by passing a decree of mandatory injunction and also for permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants were directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorized construction raised by the defendants in the shape of huge outer gate in the entrance, a staircase and bathroom-cum-toilet, the room preventing the approach to the property of the plaintiff from the common passage adjoining to latrines comprising of Khasra ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 3 Nos..202, 221/1, 221/2, 222 and 225/1, measuring 105-79 Sq.
meters, situated at Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan and further the .
defendants were restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering or trespassing in the property of the plaintiff comprised in Khasra No.216/2, 217, 268, total measuring 270-63 Sq Meters, situated in Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan, with the of costs of the suit. The report of the Local Commissioner Ext.PW-
4/A and mutation Ext. PW/4/A/2 were ordered to be form part of rt the decree sheet.
3. The JDs/petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree as passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nahan, before the District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan on 23.12.1999. Learned District Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 12.09.2000 partly accepted the appeal and the judgment and decree as passed by learned trial Court was partly modified. While dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for demolition of Iron Gate in front of the property from Naya Bazar and the construction of staircase, bathroom-cum-
toilet and the water tank in the common deori, the remaining part of the decree of the lower Court is kept intact. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory injunction was allowed to the extent that the defendants/JDs were directed to demolish/remove the room ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 4 12 x 13 feet constructed by them in the common passage of the parties and thus, blocking the entrance of the plaintiff to the .
property fallen to his share and to remove the debris/malba thrown in the vacant site of the property of the plaintiff within three months from the date of passing of the judgment and decree.
Further, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the of lawful and peaceful use of the property fallen to the share of the plaintiff as well as the property kept for common use of the parties in any manner.
rt
4. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants filed two regular second appeals being RSA Nos.633 of 2000 and 643 of 2000 and the decree holder filed cross objections bearing No.308 of 2001 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 02.11.2006, the regular second appeals preferred by the defendants were ordered to be dismissed and further the cross objections filed by the decree holders/respondents were also ordered to be dismissed.
5. The decree holders/respondents filed an application for the execution of decree under the provisions of Order 21 Rules 11, 32 & 35 of CPC before the learned executing Court.
The said execution petition was dismissed by the learned executing Court holding the same to be barred by limitation.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 56. Against the dismissal of the execution petition, the decree holders preferred Civil Revision No.23 of 2012 before this .
Court and vide its order dated 25.07.2013, the said civil revision was allowed, after holding that the execution petition was well within the period of limitation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned executing Court dated 17.12.2011 was set of aside and the executing Court was directed to restore the execution petition to its original number and thereafter proceed to rt execute the same in accordance with law.
7. After the restoration of the execution petition, the present petitioners filed objections under Section 47 of CPC.
Learned executing Court vide its order dated 26.09.2024 dismissed the objections filed under Section 47 of CPC on behalf of defendants/JDs.
8. Feeling dissatisfied against the impugned order, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the JDs/present petitioners.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the present petitioners/JDs that the impugned order, dismissing the objections filed by the present petitioners under Section 47 of CPC, is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. He submits that the impugned order is not based on the factual matrix of the ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 6 case and the learned executing Court has erred in dismissing the objections as filed by the present petitioners/JDs and by issuing .
further direction to the SDM to demolish the structure as per decree dated 21.09.2009, which was further modified by the learned District Judge on 12.09.2007.
10. On the other hand, the impugned order has been of defended by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the decree holder. He submits that the decree holder is running from pillar to rt post and the decree which was passed in the year 1999 has not been implemented till date despite of passing of more than 27 years. He further submits that under the provisions of Section 115 of CPC, the scope of interference is very limited until and unless there is any perversity in the impugned order.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also scanned the case file.
12. The first objection which was raised by the J.D in his reply is that the present execution petition is not maintainable as the decree was passed in favour of one Shri Bikram Singh Thakur, therefore, the execution petition, which has been filed by respondent Paritosh Chauhan, is not maintainable. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 read as follows:
"16. Application for execution by transferee of decree.--Where a decree or, if a decree has been ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 7 passed jointly in favour of two or more persons, the interest of any decree-holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of .
law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it; and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder:
Provided that, where the decree, or such interest as of aforesaid, has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and rt the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution:
Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others."
13. The said provisions enable the transferee of a decree to apply for its execution. A person to whom a decree has been transferred can execute the same under the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the decree holder, being the transferee of the property, does not require separate decree assignment in his favour. The legal position is enumerated/explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vaishno Devi Construction through Sole Proprietor (dead) through legal representatives and anther vs. Union of India & others, 2022(2) SCC 290 as follows:
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 8"28. We may further add that while considering the divergent views of the High Courts, the Law Commission took note of the fact that two different .
interpretations of Jugalkishore Saraf had been adopted. Thus, the Law Commission really sought to clarify the legal position so that the conflicting interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment would not survive. The Explanation clearly stipulates that nothing in Order XXI Rule 16 of the CPC would affect of the provisions of Section 146 and the transferee of the right in property which is subject matter of a suit rtmay apply for execution of the decree without separate assignment of the decree as required by law. No doubt the appellants are not parties in the suit proceedings but they claim as assignees of the decree holder."
Even learned counsel for petitioner has conceded that findings passed by the learned executing Court qua this aspect is sustainable.
14. The objection raised by the present petitioners/JDs that the decree sought to be executed is vague, uncertain and untenable, therefore, cannot be executed in the manner it is sought to be executed. The objection petition reveals that various objections have been raised while executing the decree by the JDs/petitioners. It has been stated in the objection petition that the removal of malba cannot be directed against the JDs/petitioners, as the decree holder has raised the construction ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 9 for running the school, as mentioned in objection No.1. It is averred in the objection petition that under the present .
circumstances, from the path in question, it is quite impossible to reach up to the stated room, as the path is already covered with the constructed property of the petitioners/JDs (i.e. stairs, bathroom-cum-toilet, water tank and other property). The alleged of common passage is virtually, factually and entirely in the possession of the Jds/petitioners and was being used much prior rt to the institution of the suit, which fact already admitted by the decree holder.
15. The sum and substance of the objections, as raised by the JDs/petitioners is that, since the passage has been closed, there is no way or path to reach to the room sought to be demolished. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the room sought to be demolished cannot be reached, therefore, no purpose will be served by its demolition.
16. The suit, which was filed by the decree holder/plaintiff for mandatory injunction, was decreed by learned trial Court by passing a decree of mandatory injunction and also for permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the defendants were directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorized construction raised by the defendants in the shape ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 10 of huge outer gate in the entrance, a staircase and bathroom-
cum-toilet, the room preventing the approach to the property of .
the plaintiff from the common passage adjoining to latrines comprising of Khasra Nos..202, 221/1, 221/2, 222 and 225/1, measuring 105-79 Sq meters, situated at Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan and further the defendants were restrained by way of of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering or trespassing in the property of the plaintiff comprised in Khasra No.216/2, 217, rt 268, total measuring 270-63 Sq Meters, situated in Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan with the costs of the suit.
17. Against the judgment and decree, the petitioners/JDs had preferred an appeal, which was partially accepted and petitioners/JDs were directed to demolish/remove the room 12 x 13 feet constructed by them in the common passage of the parties and thus blocking the entrance of the plaintiff to the property fallen to his share and to remove the debris/malba thrown in the vacant site of the property of the plaintiff within three months from the date of passing of the judgment.
18. It is an admitted fact that the said findings returned by the learned first appellate Court stand affirmed by this Court, whereby the RSA Nos.633 and 643 of 2000 filed by the petitioners/JDs were dismissed in 2006. The plaintiff instituted the ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 11 suit on 04.06.1993 for mandatory injunction and despite passing of more than 33 years, the decree has not been executed in its .
letter and spirit till date. The judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, which was modified by the learned District Judge, is very clear and specific. Now by raising the objections, the petitioners cannot be permitted to rewrite the judgments and of decrees, which are sought to be implemented. It is common principle of law that the decree has to be implemented in its letter rt and spirit and the JDs cannot be permitted to go beyond the decree and they cannot be permitted to raise frivolous objections in order to frustrate the implementation of the judgment and decree.
19. The petitioners have raised certain objections by taking a plea that since the passage, which leads to the room sought to be demolished, has been closed, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the execution of the decree.
Such submission of the petitioners is untenable and liable to be rejected. A person who is fighting for his cause for more than 33 years cannot be left high and dry on raising such kind of baseless objections. Once there is a decree by the competent Court of law it has to be implemented in its letter and spirit. Learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order, after taking into ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 12 consideration each and every aspect of the matter and rejected the objections which are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
.
Learned trial Court directed the SDM to demolish the structure as per decree, as passed by learned trial Court, which was further modified by the learned District Judge. The directions which were passed by the learned executing Court for the demolition of room of with dimension of 12 x 13 feet in common passage adjoining two latrines comprising of Khasra Nos.202, 221/1, 221/2, 222 and rt 222/1, measuring 105-79 Sq meters, has been rightly passed strictly in consonance with the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court.
20. It is apposite to explain the nature and scope conferred to this Court under Section 115 of the CPC and analyze whether this Court is empowered to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner in the instant case. The said provision reads as under:
"Section 115. Revision-
[(1)] The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears--
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 13
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit:
.
[Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.] of [(2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an rtappeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.] [(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.] [Explanation.--In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided"
includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.]"
21. This Court in Civil Revision No. 72 of 2025, titled Rajeev Bansal vs. Parkash Chand and others, decided on 09.04.2026 has reiterated the scope of interference while dealing with the case as filed under Section 115 of CPC, which reads as follows:-
"14. The primary object of the revision powers conferred to the High Courts is to prevent subordinate courts from acting arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally while they exercise their jurisdiction. The aspect related to the revision powers given to the High Court has been extensively dealt with by the Hon'ble ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 14 Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, whereby the Hon'ble Court discussed the meaning and scope of the said provision.
.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and others, 1969(3) SCC 807, has considered the provisions of Section 115 of CPC as follows:
"5. The position thus seems to be firmly established of that while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said rt errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in this Clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this Clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 15 does not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power u/s 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it .
dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify interference on revision u/s 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional District of Judge in his manner of dealing with this question. It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeal. rt
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5622 of 2025, titled as P. Kumarakurubaran vs, P. Narayanan & others, held as under:-
14. It is also to be noted that the appellant has categorically averred in the plaint that he executed the registered power of attorney in favour of his father solely for the limited purpose of constructing a house and carrying out related activities. There is no express clause authorizing his father to sell the suit property to any person without the appellant's consent and knowledge. Yet, the appellant's father executed a sale deed in favour of his granddaughter, going beyond the scope of the power of attorney, which raises serious doubt about misuse of authority and potential fraud. Such assertions cannot be rejected in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, we are of the view that the plaint discloses a cause of action which cannot be shut out at the threshold. Thus, the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in refusing to reject the plaint and in holding that the matter ought to proceed to trial. The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, ought ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 16 not to have interfered in the absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity in the trial court's order. Rejecting the plaint where substantial factual .
disputes exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority under the Power of Attorney, is legally unsustainable."
17. In Ajit Singh & others vs. Krishan Kumar, decided on 18th October, 2023, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as under:
of "11. The same view is reiterated in a later decision of this Court in the case of Managing Director (Mig) rtHindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway [(1972) 3 SCC 195] wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court speaking through Hegde, J. clearly stated that the High Court under Section 115 CPC had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court based on facts or even involving any error of law. It was next observed that it was not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear, that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It was not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity.
That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code."
22. On bare perusal of the above provision, it is clear that the High Court can only interfere with the orders of the Subordinate Court if the court has committed illegality or material ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 17 irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. It is imperative to note that under the revisional powers, this Court cannot reverse the .
findings on the facts by the Subordinate Court and can only interfere if any infirmities are found with the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court and not when the courts erroneously decide the cases.
of
23. The primary object of the revisional powers conferred to the High Courts is to prevent subordinate courts from acting rt arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally while they exercise their jurisdiction. The aspect related to the revision powers given to the High Court has been extensively dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, whereby the Hon'ble Court discussed the meaning and scope of the said provision.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and others, 1969(3) SCC 807, has considered the provisions of Section 115 of CPC as follows:
"5. The position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 18 not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a .
jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words "illegally" and "with of material irregularity" as used in this Clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in rt which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this Clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court does not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power u/s 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal, could hardly justify interference on revision u/s 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned Additional District Judge in his manner of dealing with this question. It seems to us that in this matter the High Court treated the revision virtually as if it was an appeal.::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 19
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5622 of 2025, titled as P. Kumarakurubaran vs, P. .
Narayanan & others, held as under:-
14. It is also to be noted that the appellant has categorically averred in the plaint that he executed the registered power of attorney in favour of his father solely for the limited purpose of constructing a house of and carrying out related activities. There is no express clause authorizing his father to sell the suit property to any person without the appellant's consent and knowledge. Yet, the appellant's father executed a sale rt deed in favour of his granddaughter, going beyond the scope of the power of attorney, which raises serious doubt about misuse of authority and potential fraud.
Such assertions cannot be rejected in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, we are of the view that the plaint discloses a cause of action which cannot be shut out at the threshold. Thus, the trial Court acted within its jurisdiction in refusing to reject the plaint and in holding that the matter ought to proceed to trial. The High Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, ought not to have interfered in the absence of any jurisdictional error or perversity in the trial court's order. Rejecting the plaint where substantial factual disputes exist concerning limitation and the scope of authority under the Power of Attorney, is legally unsustainable."
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 2026. In Ajit Singh & others vs. Krishan Kumar, decided on 18th October, 2023, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held as .
under:
"11. The same view is reiterated in a later decision of this Court in the case of Managing Director (Mig) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway [(1972) 3 SCC 195] wherein a three-Judge Bench of of this Court speaking through Hegde, J. clearly stated that the High Court under Section 115 CPC had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court based on facts or even involving any rt error of law. It was next observed that it was not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear, that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It was not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity.
That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code."
27. While dealing with the present civil revision petition, the scope of interference with the findings as returned by the executing Court is very limited. Keeping in view the material placed on record, there is no infirmity in the order as passed by learned Court below.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 2128. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly .
dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.
Civil Revision No.186 of 202429. The present petition arises out of order as passed by leaned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. dated of 10.12.2024, whereby the SDM was directed to demolish the wall recently constructed on the path by the JDs from the side of their rt house to reach the disputed site and to implement the demolition order dated 26.09.2024.
30. Learned executing Court vide its order dated 26.09.2024, after dismissing the objections as filed by the Jds/petitioners, directed the SDM concerned to demolish the structure as per the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2009, which was further modified by the learned District Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 12.09.2000. It was ordered that the the room with dimension of 12 x 13 feet in common passage adjoining two latrines comprising of Khasra Nos.202, 221/1, 221/2, 222 and 222/1, measuring 105-79 Sq meters, situated at Mohal Naya Bazar, Nahan, was directed to be demolished.
Instead of complying with the order dated 26.09.2024, the present petitioners/JDs raised construction of the wall on the suit land.
::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 22Learned executing Court, while dealing with the objections as filed by the DH and JDs to the report of the Tehsildar, vide its .
order dated 10.12.2024 directed the SDM to demolish the wall, which was recently constructed on the path from the house of the JDs to reach the disputed site and to implement the demolition order.
of
31. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order, as passed by learned Civil Judge, Nahan, is liable to be rt quashed and set aside as it is beyond the scope of the decree and does not fall within the parameters of law.
32. On the other hand, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the decree holder that the conduct of the petitioners from day one is to stall the execution of the judgment and decree which has been passed by learned Court. He further submits that instead of complying with order, which was passed by learned executing Court on 26.09.2024 for the removal of the structure, the JDs raised the construction of a wall in order to stall and scuttle the proceedings. As held in Civil Revision 185 of 2024, the JDs cannot be permitted to go beyond the decree. Learned executing Court has rightly passed the order for the demolition of the wall which was constructed by the JDs in defiance to the previous order, which was passed by learned executing Court on ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS 23 26.09.2024. The conduct of the JDs reveals that their thrust is to evade the execution of the decree and to stall the same in any .
manner. This conduct of the petitioners is depreciable. Learned executing Court has rightly passed the impugned order as the execution of the decree has to be taken to its logical end. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point any infirmity in the of same.
33. Consequently, the present petition is also being rt devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.
( Romesh Verma ) Judge 22nd April 2026 (vt) ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 08:23:42 :::CIS