2025:HHC:29937 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.461 of 2022 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Rajinder Kumar & others … Petitioners Versus Kehar Singh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Naveen Kumar Dass, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The petitioners herein are aggrieved by Annexure P-3, in terms whereof, process has been issued to the petitioners in the execution proceedings. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court feeling aggrieved by the fact that notices have been issued by the learned Executing Court without any due application of mind and without appreciating that the petitioners were not the defendants in the civil suit. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below. He submitted that originally there were four defendants, but defendant No.1 was ordered to be deleted on 25.04.2006. The petitioners as per him have got nothing to do with defendants No.2 to 4 and decree if 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29937 executable, is only against the said defendants and not against the petitioners. 3. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that these proceedings be closed by allowing the petitioners to withdraw the execution petition filed before the learned Execution Court (Annexure P-2), with liberty to file a fresh execution petition against the defendants in the civil suit. 4. In light of the prayer so made by the petitioners, this petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to withdraw Civil Execution No.13 of 2022, preferred by them before the learned Executing Court below. As a result thereof, Annexure P-3, i.e. notice issued to the present petitioners is rendered ineffective and inoperative. 5. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. It goes without saying that withdrawal of the execution petition preferred against the petitioners shall not come in the way of the Decree Holder in getting the decree executed against the defendants against whom the judgment and decree was actually passed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 03, 2025 (Rishi)