The court upheld the execution order, emphasizing the lawful enforcement of court orders and consequences for obstructing justice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.382 of 2020 th Decided on 06 October, 2025 Sanjeev Malhotra and another …Petitioners Versus Usha Seth and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioners : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-

“That the impugned order dated 05.12.2019 H passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Shimla in execution Petition No.62-10 of 2018 titled Usha Seth vs. Archana Seth and another may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.”

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Executing Court, which order reads as under:-

“Today again no objections filed by the JD No.1 despite availing several opportunities for the same. There is on record an application filed by the applicant/DH under Order 21 Rule 35 read with Section 151 CPC for executing warrant of possession and for breaking/open locks put inside and out-side the concerned premises.

Record reveals that in the present case vide order dated 22.06.2019, this Court had ordered to issue "warrant of p ossession" qua which the report of the bailiff is on record. Therefore, there is no requirement to file any reply to said application. Hence, consideration held. This order shall dispose of said application.

It is averred that the Decree Holder (here-in-

after to be referred as "the DH") along with officials of the Court had visited the premises-in-dispute on 23.07.2019 for the purpose of execution of the g warrants of possession, however, they were restrained/obstructed from doing so by Sanjeev Malhotra and Punam as they tried to obstruct the officials of the court by tying their dogs on the entrance of the premises and threatened the DH and court officials with dire consequences, in case they enter the premises. Further that, the DH apprehending quarrel, asked for help from police station Sadar Shimla and the SHO concerned sent a team of eight persons on the spot, however, they refused to interfere in the matter saying that they have no orders of court as such they cannot help the DH in getting the possession and they are on the spot only to prevent any untoward Malhotra and Punam openly threatened the DH and officials of the court that they will break their heads and loosen dogs upon them. Further that, the premises in dispute have been covered by a mesh wire fencing which is locked b y a gate from inside and outside and is also locked from all sides and for this reason the court order regarding breaking of locks is required so that po ssession of the premises could be obtained peacefully, without any hindrance. It is averred that no prejudice will be caused to the opposite party in case the present application is allowed. On these grounds it is averred that the present application may kindly be allowed. The application is duly accompanied with an affidavit. Heard. Record perused. Perusal of the record corroborates the contentions made in the present g application qua issuance of the warrant of possession dated 22.06.2019. There is on record the report of bailiff which corroborates the contentions made in the present application. It has specifically been mentioned in the report that when the official(s) of Court visited the spot for executing the warrant of possession then Sanjeev Malhotra and Punam restrained/obstructed them by locking the premises and by threatening them with dire consequences and they set free the dogs, used abusive language causing nuisance. It is evident from the report of the bailiff that cognizable offence(s)

seems to have been committed by Sanjeev Malhotra and Punam. Therefore, the SHO concerned is directed to lodge the FIR against Sanjeev M