( 2025:HHC:28995 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 206 of 2024. Reserved on: 2 1 st August, 2025. Decided on :27 th August, 2025. Keshwa Nand .... Petitioner. Versus Guljari Lal ....Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Jaitik, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. A. K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. The instant petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) assailing order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:28995 ) District Una, H.P. in Execution Petition No. 14/15/11, titled as Keshwa Nand vs. Guljari Lal. 2. The petitioner herein is the decree holder in terms of decree dated 25.05.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court NO.2, Una, in Civil Suit No. 91/2004. The decree is in following terms:- “19. In view of my findings on issues above, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with no order as to costs and defendant is retrained through permanent injunction from raising any sort of construction and from changing the nature of the suit land comprised in Khewat No.263, Khatauni No.452, Khasra No.192, measuring 0-01-18 Hrs situate in Up Mohal Charatgarh Upperla Mohal Charatgarh Tehsil and District Una. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 3. Petitioner alleged that the respondent Guljari Lal disobeyed and violated decree and on such allegation approached the learned Executing Court by way of an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code. The application was instituted on 18.06.2011. 4. The allegation made in the application was contested by the respondent. It was stated that the 3 ( 2025:HHC:28995 ) defendant/respondent had not violated or disobeyed the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 91/04. 5. Learned Executing Court framed the following issue:- 1. Whether the respondent has intentionally and deliberately disobeyed the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2010, as alleged? OPP 2. Relief. 6. Petitioner examined himself as his own witness. In addition, one Rajan Sharma was also examined as AW-2. Respondent did not lead any evidence. 7. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dismissed the application of the petitioner by answering issue No.1 in negative. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 9. The allegation levelled by the petitioner was that the respondent had raised temporary 4 ( 2025:HHC:28995 ) construction on the suit land after passing of decree. As noticed above, the application was instituted on 18.06.2011 which means that the allegation referred to the period between the date of passing of decree and filing of application. 10. In support of the allegation, petitioner examined himself as his own witness. Though in the examination in chief filed by way of affidavit, the petitioner reiterated his allegation, however, while being cross-examined on behalf of the respondent, a categoric stand was taken by the petitioner that on the suit land there existed only one house and that was constructed by him. He further stated that the respondent had not raised any construction. The petitioner while answering a question in cross- examination further stated that the respondent had not violated the decree. The statement of petitioner was recorded on 15.06.2011. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code with a 5 ( 2025:HHC:28995 ) prayer to appoint a Local Commissioner to ascertain the allegation of construction raised by the respondent on the suit land. Naib Tehsildar, Una was appointed as Local Commissioner, who demarcated the land and reported that the respondent had caused unauthorized occupation on the boundary of the suit land in the shape of a temporary path. The Local Commissioner was later examined as a witness (AW-2) on 20.07.2023. In his examination-in-chief, he not only proved the demarcation report Ex.AW2/A but clarified that reference to encroached portion made in his report was in respect of the passage created by the respondent on some portion. He further stated that the respondent had promised to stop using the passage. 12. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove any encroachment on the suit land having been done by the respondent after passing of the decree. It has been held that self-serving 6 ( 2025:HHC:28995 ) statement of petitioner would not be sufficient in the absence of any tangible corroborating material on record. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material illegality or perversity in the order of learned Executing Court. The petitioner while appearing as his own witness had admitted in the cross-examination that neither the respondent had raised any construction on the suit land nor had made the encroachment. Still on his request a Local Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner also did not find any construction having been raised by the respondent on the suit land. What was found by the Commissioner was creation of some temporary passage. The petitioner had not raised any grievance with respect to creation of such passage. Even otherwise the reliance could not have been placed on the report of the Local Commissioner by the petitioner because the petitioner himself had filed objections before the 7 ( 2025:HHC:28995 ) executing Court to the report of Local Commissioner by alleging that the Local Commissioner had not carried out the measurements in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. 14. In result, I do not find any material on record to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P. in Execution Petition No. 14/15/11, titled as Keshwa Nand vs. Guljari Lal, is affirmed. Pending, applications, if any also stand disposed of. 15. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 27th August, 2025. (jai)