2025:HHC:23381 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.181 of 2022 Decided on: 18.07.2025 Rakesh Kumar & others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Charan Dass & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sunny Modgil, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) and Ms. Ananya, Advocate, respondent No.1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 4, 6, 7 to 11. Respondents No.1, 13, 16, 20, 22 and 27 ex parte. Respondents No.3, 5, 12 and 21 reported to be dead. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) A perusal of the record demonstrates that respondents No.2 to 12 are proforma respondents. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2, 4, 6 and 7 to 11. Remaining proforma respondents are ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents. Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(a) That the impugned order dated 27-11-2021 (Annexure P/9) and Local Commissioner’s report (Annexure P/7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23381 3. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside order dated 27.11.2021 (Annexure P-9), which reads as under:- “No objections sought to be filed. Let warrant of possession as per the report of Local Commissioner be issued and report for compliance be called for 30.01.2022.” The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the report of the Local Commissioner (Annexure P-7), against which no objections were filed by the petitioners, as is also culled out form order dated 27.11.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as at the time when the demarcation was carried out by the Local Commissioner, they had objected thereto at the spot, therefore, they were under the bonafide impression that there was no need to file any objection before learned Court below against the report of the Local Commissioner. He further submits that it is a matter of record that fraud has been played upon the petitioners and the demarcation which has been carried out is not in terms of the decree which was passed by the learned Court below. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the contention of the petitioners deserves outright rejection, for the reason that as it is evident from order dated 27.11.2021 that despite opportunity having been granted to the parties to file objections in the Court against the report of the Local Commissioner, as no objections were preferred by them, therefore, they have no locus to assail the said order by way of 3 2025:HHC:23381 filing the present petition. He further submits that otherwise also, when the demarcation was carried out by the Local Commissioner, no objection was raised by the petitioners. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent No.1 and other counsel for the represented parties, this Court is of the considered view that filing of this petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. 7. It is not in dispute that there is a decree dated 01.08.2012 in favour of respondent No.1. For the last thirteen years, the Decree Holders are waiting for execution of the said decree. In terms of the documents appended with this petition by the petitioners when the case was listed before the learned Executing Court on 31.01.2020, the following order was passed:- “This is an application under Order 26 Rule 9 and under Order 20 Rule 18 readwith under Section 151 CPC filed for appointment of Local Commissioner with the directions to visit the spot and to make the partition separation of the suit property marked by letters ABCDEFGHI shown in red colour in the site plan Ext. PW-1/A forming part of Khewat No. 819 min. Khatauni No 1250 1248 1199/458, khasra No 1323 to 1332 and 1334 as entered in Jamabandi for the year 2003-04, situated at Mohal Lalhn. Tehsil Haroli District Una, HP Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein Accordingly. Sh. Ravinder Garg, retired Naib Tehsildar, Rio Village Nangra is hereby appointed as Local Commissioner with the direction that he will visit the spot to execute the commission and submit his detailed report on 15 05 2020. His fees is assessed to be at Rs.4,000/- which shall be paid by the applicant Let 4 2025:HHC:23381 necessary reference be made for executing the commission Application. stands disposed of. Be tagged with main file. Be listed for filing of report on above said date.” Thereafter, when the matter was again listed before the learned Executing Court on 27.11.2021, it passed an order that as no objections were sought to be filed against the report of the Local Commissioner, therefore, let warrant of possession as per the report of the Local Commissioner be issued and report for compliance be called for. The order passed by the learned Executing Court on 27.11.2021 has already been quoted by me hereinabove. 8. In the light of the fact that no objections were filed against the report of the Local Commissioner, the petitioners have no locus to file this petition. The averments made in the petition as were also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that because the petitioners had raised objections at the time of the demarcation, therefore, they were under bonafide belief that no written objections were required to be filed with the Court are difficult to believe. 9. As it was a conscious decision of the petitioners not to file objections against the report of the Local Commissioner, as is evident from the averments made in the petition itself, they cannot now be allowed to assail the order that was passed by learned Executing Court on 27.11.2021. 10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.1/ plaintiff. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand 5 2025:HHC:23381 disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 18, 2025 (Rishi)