2025:HHC:28683 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 348 of 2020 Decided on: 25.08.2025 Smt. Deepa Joshi … Petitioner Versus Sh. Mohd. Abid … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Simran, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP(M) No. 490 of 2020 By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the present proceedings, which have been initiated by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the considered view that as there is no limitation prescribed for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this application is mis-conceived. Of course the Court can also look into the delay occurred but there is no limitation for filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this application is dismissed as not pressed. CMPMO No. 348 of 2020 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28683 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 30.04.2019 as well as order passed by learned Appellate Authority, in terms whereof, the appeal filed against the said order by the present petitioner, was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent and gone through the contents of the petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the prayer of the decree holder for sending the judgment debtor to civil imprisonment on the ground that in terms of the compromise, the delay in making good the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was only of one week and the judgment debtor was also willing to pay interest for delay of one week. 5. In the considered view of this Court, the findings returned by the learned Executing Court while rejecting the prayer of the decree holder and not sending the judgment debtor to civil imprisonment cannot be said to be perverse because the purpose for which the parties approach the Courts including the Executing Court is for the adjudication of their rights. These proceedings are not meant to satisfy the egos of the parties. When the judgment debtor had made the payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- 3 2025:HHC:28683 may be after one week from the agreed date and was also willing to pay interest for delay of one week, which delay in the considered view of the Court is not a considerable delay, the order passed by learned Executing Court, rejecting the prayer of the decree holder of sending the judgment debtor to civil imprisonment, calls for no interference. As far as the order passed by the Appellate Authority that the appeal is not maintainable is concerned, as it could not be disputed that the appeal indeed was not maintainable, therefore, the Court is not interfering with the said order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 25, 2025 (narender)