Dev Darshan Sud, J.

This revision petition has been preferred by the judgment debtors against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehra passed on the application under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC), filed by the decree holders praying for action against the respondents for disobedience of the decree.

2. It is undisputed before me that the suit in which the execution proceedings were instituted was decreed in the following terms:

“ Issue No.8 (Relief):

19. In view of my findings on issue Nos. 1 to 7 above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to stop throwing dirty water from his shed comprised in khasra No. 1592 towards the suit land comprised in khata No.129, khatauni No. 147, khasra Nos. 1595 and 1596 situated in Mohal Garh Teh. Dehra Distt. Kangra (HP). The defendant is also directed by way of mandatory injunction not to cause any damage or dampness to Atly and foundations of the plaintiff’s house situate over khasra No.1595. The defendant is further directed to remove the wall and structure on the suit land i.e. khasra Nos.1595 and 1596 as shown in Ex. P13 from Point ‘AEDGH’ which is 5 sq. Mtrs. approx and also in the site plans Ex. PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. The demarcation report Ex. P11, Najari Naksha Ex. P13 and site plans Ex. PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B shall form part of decree. The wall and structure raised on the suit land by the defendants shall be removed at the costs of defendant. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. The file after due completion be consigned to the Records.”

3. It is undisputed that this decree has not been reversed, varied or set aside. The plaintiff/decree holders/respondents herein pleaded that the decree has not been implemented/obeyed. The pleading was that judgment debtors have not stopped the folw of water from their shed in khasra No. 1592 towards the suit land bearing khasra Nos. 1595 and 1596 nor stopped causing damage and dampness to the Atly and foundation of the house of the plaintiff situated over khasra No.1595 or removed the wall and structure from area identified AEDGH according to the report of the Local Commissioner, aks sajra and site plan. The result was that stagnated water flowing from the land of the judgment debtors towards the suit land is causing damage to the suit property. This was the primary issue between the parties.

4. The learned executing Court on the pleadings. settled issues. The most important issues being as to whether the decree (supra) has been disobeyed, whether the petition was barred by limitation, whether it was not maintainable and as to whether it was bad for better particulars. All these issues were held against the judgment debtors. Parties went to trial on these issues and in order to prove their case, both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned executing Court on the evidence of Shri Alok Sharma, son of the decree holder, who appeared as AW1, AW 2 Shri Naresh Kumar, the photographer and one Shri Vijay Kumar, AW3 has concluded that there was disobedience of the decree. AW1 Shri Alok Sharma stated that decree has been flouted by the judgment debtor that is to say dirty/filthy water was flowing from his unauthorized construction towards the house of the decree holder and this was causing damage to the wall of the house of the decree holder which had developed dampness. AW2 Shri Naresh Kumar proved on record photographs taken by him which show that plaster of the walls was falling off and dampness etc., was the consequence. RW1 Shri Ashok Bala had denied these allegations stating that no water falls on the land of the decree holder causing any dampness etc. RW2 Shri Jagdish Ram and RW3 Shri Vagesh Bhatt also examined by the petitioners/judgment debtors in support of their contention that they have not disobeyed the decree in any sense. The learned executing court notices that RW-2 Shri Jagdish Ram states i