IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No.620/2024

Date of Decision: 12th December, 2025.

Dev Singh and Ors. .....Petitioners P

Versus

Ishwar Dass ...Responden

t

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioners: Mr. Jeevan Kumar,f Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

The present petition has been preferred against the

impugned order datedu 27.03.2024, passed by the Executing Court, whereby an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC by the present respondent/decree holder for executing the order dated 28.11.2003 and order dated 01.04.2008, has been allowed and a warrant of possession qua handing over of vacant possession of the suit land in favour of the respondent/decree

holder has been allowed.

2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present

petition.

3. Vide judgment dated 18.08.1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nurpur, District Kangra, HP, an ex parte decree for the permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present petitioner/defendant permanently from raising any kind of construction or changing the nature of the land in any manner whatsoever till the suit land is partitioned

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

by metes and bounds had been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder.

4. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 21 Rule

32 CPC was filed by the present respondent/decree ho.lder qua execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1994. The same was allowed, vide judgment dated 2 8.11.2003. The relevant extract whereof is reads as under:-

“In view of light of foresaid discussion on issue No.1, I direct the judgment debtors/respondents to remove the structure raised by them over the land comprised in khata No 176 min, khatuni No.446, khasra No.881, area measuring 0-01-29 HM (Gair Mumkin Abadi) situate in Mohal and Mauza Mohtali, Tehsil Indoora, District Kangra, HP within the period of one month from lay at their own costs. Failing to not obey the aforesaid directions of this court the judgment debtors/respondents will be liable to simple imprisonment for a period of one month on depositing substance allowances etc and the decree holder has the right to remove the structure with the help of the police at the costs of judgment debtors/respondents. Accordingly, this execution i petition/application under order 21 Rule 32 CPC is hereby allowed. The file after its due completion/compliance be consigned to record room.”

5. For enforcing the judgment dated 28.11.2003, an application was filed by the present respondent/decree holder. The same was decided on 01.04.2008. The same was assailed by way of filing a Civil Revision bearing No.57 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 12.09.2017.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application under Section 151 CPC for executing the orders dated 28.11.2003 and 01.04.2008 had been filed. In the same, a prayer for removal of the structure, raised over the suit land, with the hel.p of the Police at the cost and expense of the petitioner/judgment debtor had been made.

7. In response, it was submitted that the alleged construction stands removed. However, nothing had been placed on record by the present petitioner/judgment debtor to demonstrate that the structure ordered to be removed, in terms of judgment dated 28.11.2003, stood removed.

8. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which in my consider ed view lays down the correct procedure to be followed in the case at hand. The same reads as follows:-

“Order XXI Rule 32 CPC: Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction:-

(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeye