IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No. 191 of 2025

Date of Decision: 18.12.2025

Rajiv Gupta .....Petitioner.

Versus

Amritsaria Mal. …..Respondent.

Coram

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

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Pranjal Mu njal, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Nemo.

Bipin Chanduer Negi, Judge

The present petition has been filed against the

impugned order dated 06.10.2025, whereby an application filed under Section 151 CPC and another application filed under Order 2 1 Rule 97 of the CPC, have been dismissed by the

learned Executing Court.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order

iand the documents appended along with the present petition.

3. Eviction order sought to be executed, in the case at hand, is dated 04.08.2017. In furtherance of the execution proceedings filed by the present petitioner/decree holder, a warrant of possession had been issued by the Executing Court. As per the report of the bailiff and as admitted by the present petitioner/decree holder, possession of the demised premises had been handed over to the petitioner/decree holder on

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

23.06.2025 at 12:30 PM, in the presence of Mr. Tarun Gupta and Mr. Rajesh Bansal. P

4. However, on the very same date, locks affixed by the petitioner/decree holder on the demised premises were broken open and fresh locks had been put on the demised premises. In this respect, a complaint was made to the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Shimla on 23.06.2025 at 7:00 PM itself. Copy of the complaint along with its true typed copy is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5.

5. The warrant of possession report prepared by the Bailiff on 23.06.2025, was received in the Court on 01.07.2025. On 01.07.2025, the facts and attending circumstances narrated herein above were brought to the notice of the Executing Court by moving an application under Section 151 gCPC. In the application, it was prayed that a warrant of possession qua the demised premises be issued and the same be got executed with the assistance of the Police by breaking/open the locks put thereupon. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC was also filed before the Executing Court on

02.09.2025.

6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the Executing Court had dismissed both the applications filed under Section 151 and under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, filed by the present petitioner/decree holder on the ground that warrant of possession was duly executed on 23.06.2025 and hence, the execution is deemed to be fully satisfied. P

7. Warrant of possession, in the case at hand, was executed on 23.06.2025, in pursuance whereto possession of the demised premises was handed over to the present petitioner/decree holder in the presence of one Sh. Tarun Gupta and Sh. Rajesh Bansal at 12:30 PM. The said report was furnished to the Executing Court on 01.07.2025.

8. Besides the aforesaid, on 01.07.2025, it was brought to the notice of the Executing Court that on 23.06.2025 itself, the possession of the demised premises had been taken over by someone else by breaking the locks fixed by the present petitioner/decree holder on the demised premises by affixing new locks thereupon. Complaint in this respect, as has been gstated supra, had been made to the concerned police authority on 23.06.2025 itself.

9. In terms of Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, a warrant to give possession of the suit property, in the case at hand, is given to the Bailiff concerned in Form No.11 contained in Appendix-E. A report qua satisfaction of delivery of the suit premises, in terms of the warrant given to the bailiff dated 23.06.2025, was returned and placed before the Executing Court on 01.07.2025. However, on the said date, the fact of dispossession in the evening of 23.06.205 was brought to the notice of the Executing Court.