IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.3 of 2020 Decided on: 22.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Sadh Ram and others ……….. petitioners Versus Ram Singh and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tamana Sharma and Ms. Sana Rana, Advocates. For the respondents : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Srishti Negi, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “(a). To call for the records of the case No. 2/10 of 2015, titled as Ram Singh & others Vs. Sadh Ram & others pending before the Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nalagarh, District Solan H.P. and after examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order 06-09-2019 (Annexure P- 10/A) to direct the Ld. Court below to frame the issue and after framing the issue to give an opportunity to the petitioners/judgment debtors to lead evidence with respect to the Local Commissioner report. B. To give an opportunity to the petitioners/judgment debtors to file objections against the report of the Local Commissioner and the demarcation report (Annexures P-6 & P-7), 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 which is contrary to the High Court Rules and orders and the standing instructions of the Financial Commissioner.” 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the record. 3. The respondents in the case at hand were the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit land comprised in khewat/khatauni No. 14/14, bearing khasra No.217/2(02-08) 171/8(00-13), 172/8(00- 09), 9(0-17), 10(02-01), 219/12(07-15), 221/12(03-17), 222/135/13(04-01), kita-8 total land measuring 22 kanal 01 marla, situated in the area of village Ghagharwal, Hadbast No. 124: Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan, HP, as per jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (hereinafter referred to be as suit land) and khewat/khatauni no.1 min/3 min, khasra no. 1/1 (0-18) marla. 4. In the suit filed, the respondents had alleged that qua the aforesaid suit land, an instrument of partition had been prepared by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nalagarh. In sequel thereto, possession was delivered to the respondents in the case at hand by the revenue authorities. Prior to putting the respondents in possession of the suit land, a proper demarcation had been got done and fixed points had been erected to delineate the lands allotted to the respondents. 3 5. In the written statement filed, the aforesaid contentions raised in the suit had been categorically denied. Based on the revenue records, which depicted the petitioners to be the owners in possession of the suit land and considering the admission made by the petitioners/defendants therein, the suit filed by the petitioners was decreed and the present petitioners had been restrained from causing obstruction, interference qua the suit land. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.6.2013 passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court on 13.8.2014. 6. On account of infractions committed by the present petitioners qua the judgment and decree passed in favour of the present respondents stated supra, an appropriate execution Petition under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the present respondents before the executing Court. In the said execution Petition, an application seeking police assistance was filed on 13.6.2019 by the present respondents. The application was listed on 15.6.2019, on which date, the present petitioners were represented by a counsel. Counsels for the parties were heard and after hearing the counsels, police assistance was granted to the respondents and an Advocate of the Court was appointed as a local Commissioner to visit the spot to submit his report, on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 1.7.2019. 4 7. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 15.6.2019, the local Commissioner had visited the spot on 18.6.2019, inspected the spot in the presence of both the parties i.e. their counsels and with the assistance of the Halka Patwari, the suit land was also got identified. Based on the spot inspection, the Local Commissioner submitted his report on 1.7.2019. The report of the Local Commissioner along with the report of the revenue authorities is appended along with the present petition as Annexures P-7, P-6 respectively. Thereafter, the evidence of the decree holders/respondents was recorded. The decree holder (Jagat Ram)/respondent, was cross examined. On 6.9.2019, an order was passed whereby the present petitioners/JDs were directed to deliver possession to the decree holders/respondents. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be listed on 16.10.2019. On 16.10.2019, (Annexure P-10/A) the matter was posted on 18.1.2020 for compliance of order dated 6.9.2019. List of property of the Judgment debtor was also directed to be filed on the next date of hearing i.e. 18.1.2020. 8. The primary grievance of the present petitioners/JDs in the case at hand is that rules of natural justice have not been complied with as no opportunity had been afforded to the present petitioners/JDs for filing a reply to the application dated 13.6.2019 seeking police assistance filed by the present petitioners. Further, it has been contended that no opportunity has been afforded to 5 the petitioners to file objections to the report of the local Commissioner. The local Commissioners report in the case at hand has been contended to be not in consonance with the relevant rules framed qua demarcation of property. 9. At the very outset, suffice it to state that when the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in the case at hand on 30.3.2010, the respondents had categorically mentioned in their plaint that the suit land had been allocated to them post preparation of an instrument of partition and the delivery of the suit land had been made by the revenue officials to the present respondents in the case at hand. At the time of handing over possession to the respondents, a proper demarcation had been got done and fixed points had been erected to identify the suit land. 10. The Local Commissioner in the case at hand with the Revenue Staff had only identified the suit land which as has been stated supra had already been delineated prior to the filing of the suit by the respondents/plaintiffs and in doing so, fixed points had been erected by the revenue staff. Hence, in the case at hand, the local Commissioner along with the accompanying revenue staff was not demarcating the land in terms of the financial commissioner’s rules and orders but was only identifying the same based on the fixed points already delineated in order to 6 ascertain the extent of violation of the decree sought to be executed, if any. The Revenue Staff had prepared a report which formed the basis for the report of the Local Commissioner which was filed in the Court on 1.7.2019. 11. In the aforesaid factual matrix, wherein an application seeking police assistance had been filed by the present respondents/decree holders in the pending Execution Petition filed by the respondents under Order 21 Rule 32, both the counsels were heard on 15.6.2019 before an order was passed thereupon. No request for filing of a reply to the application filed seeking police assistance was ever made by the present petitioners before the Executing Court. The petitioners/JDs by not seeking time to file reply to the said application had given up their right to file a reply thereto. The order dated 15.6.2019 passed on the application was never assailed by the present petitioners rather to the contrary when the Local Commissioner had visited the spot on 18.6.2019, the petitioners alongwith their counsels were present on the spot. No objections were raised by the petitioners or their counsels qua the identification of the suit property during the local inspection done on 18.6.2019. The Local Commissioner for identifying the suit land had taken the assistance of the Revenue Staff and based on the report of the revenue staff had prepared a report which was submitted in court on 1.7.2019. Subsequent to the filing of the report of the Local 7 Commissioner on 1.7.2019, no objections to the same were preferred by the petitioners/JDs. 12. Rules of natural justice cannot be fitted into a strait jacket formula. In the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, the petitioners/JDs cannot be permitted to abrogate and reprobate . On account of their conduct, petitioners are estopped from laying challenge to the process in which they had voluntarily given their acquiescence and waived the right to challenge the same. The fruits of the decree which inure in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs cannot be permitted to be delayed to the respondents/decree holders by unnecessary delaying, protracting tactics employed by the petitioners/JDs in the case at hand. One cannot lose sight of the fact that obtaining a decree is far easier than getting the same executed. 13. In view thereof, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15th October, 2025. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 22nd September, 2025 tarun