IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CR No.154 of 2025

Decided on: 12.12.2025

Gian Chand ….Petitioner

Versus

Meena Kumari ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Rinki Kashmiri and Mr. Pranjal

C Munjal, Advocates.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

hThe petitioner-judgment debtor, by way of instant

gpetition, has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to

assail order dated 12.08.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Objection Petition No.4 of 2025, whereby the objections filed by the judgment debtor to the execution of

decree have been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as “decree holder”) is holder of a decree dated 28.05.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.4, Mandi, District

Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No.43/07. The decree reads as under:

“48. In sequel to the foregoing discussion on aforesaid issues, I do hereby decreed theP suit of plaintiff to the following effects:

I Plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant, not to cause anfy sort of interference in the suit land in any manner whosoever either himself or through his family members and agent in next featuret.

II uPlaintiff is also entitled to the decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the boundary Marks and boundary wall Cdemolished by him on his own cost and expenses within 90 days of the decree.

Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

No order as to cost. File after due competition be consigned to Record Room.”

3. The aforesaid decree stands affirmed by the appellate Court i.e. the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, vide judgment and decree dated 23.07.2011, passed in Civil Appeal No.81 of 2010.

4. The decree passed in favour of decree holder is in two parts. Firstly, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has been passed restraining the petitioner-judgment debtor from not causing any sort of interference in the suit land in any manner whatsoever either himself or through his family members and agent etc. In the second part, a decree of mandatory injunction has been passed directing the petitioner-judgment debtor to restore boundary marks and boundary wall demolished by him on his own cost and expenses within 90 days of the decree.

5. The decree holder approachfed the Executing Court with a grievance that the judgment debtor had failed to comply with decree and in that respect an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) was filed. The judgment debtor filed objections to the application mainly on the ground that the decree was in-executable for want of identification of suit land, in accordance with law.

6. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order has rejected the objections of the judgment debtor. Learned Executing Court has found that the judgment debtor had filed similar objections on earlier occasion also that stood decided on merits against him on 19.05.2015 and the said order had not been assailed by the judgment debtor. Learned Executing Court further found no substance in the argument of judgment debtor to the effect that the decree was not executable for want of identification. According to learned Executing Court, it could not go behind decree.

7. The decree in execution is backed by a detailed judgment passed by learned trial Court with sufficient reasons. The findings recorded by learned trial Court have been tested in first appeal under Section 96 of the Code and have been affirmed. f

8. Indisputably, the judgment debtor has not challenged the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court.

9. Noticeably, there are concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts that the judgment debtor had interfered with t