IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 220 of 2018 Decided on: 24.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation ……….. Petitioner Versus Dharam Lata (deceased) through LRs. ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 passed in Execution Petition No. 18/10 of 2017 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Shimla, H.P., whereby objections filed under Section 47 of CPC to the execution petition have been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order. 3. The judgment and decree sought to be executed in the case at hand is dated 10.03.2017. A preliminary decree for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 settlement of accounts was passed on 17.06.2008. An appeal against the same was filed before the learned District Judge Forests, Shimla, H.P. The appeal was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015. Final decree in the case at hand was passed on 10.03.2017. 4. The principle objection taken in the execution petition filed is that the preliminary judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015 has been challenged by the judgment debtor/present petitioner by way of an appeal preferred before the Hon’ble High Court. In the filing of the said appeal, there is an application for condonation of delay. Parties jointly submit that the said application for condonation of delay in filing the Regular Second Appeal has been dismissed and in view thereof, as on date there is no Regular Second Appeal pending before the High Court against the final judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017 and on the preliminary judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015. 5. It is a well settled position of law that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Keeping in view the said position of law, the executing Court has correctly dismissed the objections being taken qua interest to be charged from the petitioner/judgment debtor and qua the issue of one time settlement in the year 1994. The issue of one time settlement had been settled while passing the preliminary decree dated 3 17.06.2008. Appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed on 23.03.2015. Similarly, the issue of interest had also been dealt by the First Appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 23.03.2015. 6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2018. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on 27.10.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge September 24th, 2025 Susheel