IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 119 of 2023 Decided on: 12.03.2025 ____________________________________________________ Kashmir Singh and others ……….. petitioners Versus Bishan Dass and others. ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin C. Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Executing Court (Civil Judge, Barsar District Hamirpur). Vide the said order, an application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC by the present respondents, had been allowed. While allowing the same, a list of property of the present petitioners i.e. judgment debtors was directed to be filed and a warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued. 2. The application so filed under Order 21 Rule 32 was contested vehemently by the judgment debtors-present petitioners. On 17.03.2021, issues were framed. The issue relevant for adjudication of the present lis being as follows:- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 1. Whether the respondents/JDs have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.1999. OPP 3. Post framing of the aforesaid, evidence was produced by the decree holder and the judgment debtors. On a consideration of the pleadings and evidence produced insofar as the aforesaid issue is concerned, the following was stated by the Executing Court. “19. Perusal of the case file also reveals that the respondents made the same arguments in their objections filed under Section 47 of CPC which were dismissed by my Ld Predecessor The persistent pleas of the respondents contending that they are in possession of the suit land. coupled with the denial of the petitioner's title recognized by decree dated 15/10/1999, clearly show that respondents are not in consonance with the decree and want to keep interference with the suit. The arguments of the respondents also clearly snow their malafide intention”. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the sole contention raised on behalf of the present petitioners is that insofar as Order 21 Rule 32 is concerned, before passing an order, it has to be ensured that the erring party/judgment debtor has willfully failed to obey the decree in question. According to the learned counsel, an adjudication with respect to the willful conduct of the present petitioners in the case at hand has not been done by the Executing Court. In the absence of determination of relevant jurisdictional facts, learned counsel submits that there is a failure of exercise of jurisdiction and therefore the present petition before this Court needs to be allowed. 3 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the plea being raised by the present petitioners is misconceived as qua willful disobedience of the decree by the present petitioner/JDS, an issue had been framed and the same had been adjudicated by the Executing Court. Hence, according to the learned counsel, there is no failure in the exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the trial Court. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order. 7. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that an issue with respect to JDs/present petitioners having intentionally and willfully disobeyed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2019 had been framed. Evidence qua the same had been led by both the parties. Insofar the impugned order is concerned, it is evident that the Executing Court has returned categorical findings with respect to the willful conduct of the JDs/present petitioners in disobeying the decree in the case at hand. In the impugned judgment, it has categorically been mentioned that the objections being raised in response to the present application filed under Order 21 Rule 32 had been previously raised, agitated vehemently by the present JDs/petitioners while filing objections to the execution under Section 47 CPC. 8. Besides the aforesaid, despite having suffered a decree, the persistent plea of the JDs/present petitioners is that 4 they are in possession of the suit land despite having suffered a decree to the contrary. Besides the aforeasid, the petitioner-JDs after having suffered a decree, had filed a separate suit contending to the contrary. The aforesaid reflects willful disobedience on the part of the petitioners in disobeying the decree in question. Hence, I find not infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge March 12, 2025 tarun