1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.201 of 2025 Date of Decision : 06.01.2026 Pritam Chand and others …… Petitioners Versus M/S J.R. Traders ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.10.2025, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the objections filed by the present petitioners in the pending execution proceedings, have been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the record produced. 3. The suit, in the case at hand, was filed by the respondent/ Decree Holder. The suit was filed claiming damages occasioned on account of destruction of the property of the respondent/Decree 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Holder/plaintiff by the present petitioners/Judgment Debtors/defendants in the premises of the present respondent/Decree Holder. The goods damaged were Marble, Kota stone pieces and Earthen Ware Khaprel, which were sold by the present respondent/Decree Holder. The suit was decreed. The appeal preferred there against by the present petitioners/Judgment Debtors, had been dismissed. It is informed that as on date, Regular Second Appeal preferred before the High Court against the judgments passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court stands withdrawn. However, an application has been filed for restoration of the same. 4. In the execution petition so preferred, the sole objection raised by the present petitioners/Judgment Debtors is that the damaged property has been sold by the present respondent/Decree Holder and the money received on account of the same be adjusted against damages awarded against the petitioners/Judgment Debtors. The executing Court had dismissed the objections on the ground that the sale of the damaged property, in the case at hand, has not been established by the petitioners/Judgment Debtors and hence, no benefit can be granted to the petitioners/Judgment Debtor, in the case at hand. 5. Besides the aforesaid in my considered view, in the suit filed for damages, no set of, counter claim was raised or filed by the present petitioners/Judgment Debtors. Hence, in view thereof, the present petitioners/Judgment Debtors are precluded from raising the plea as is 3 being sought to be raised. In view thereof, I see no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) January 6, 2026 (KS) Judge