( 2025:HHC:27841 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 555 of 2022 Decided on: 18.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ Savitri Devi ……….. petitioner Versus Sharif Mohammad ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.10.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Execution No. 29-10 of 2021/20 with a further prayer that Execution Petition No. 29-10 of 2021/10 itself is not maintainable. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings & record appended alongwith the present petition as well as the impugned order. 3. The present respondent had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. This suit was decreed vide judgment dated 20.09.2016. While decreeing the suit, the present petitioner had been permanently restrained from digging 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:27841 ) the suit land, raising construction over the suit land and changing the nature of the suit land. 4. An execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 read with Section 151 of CPC was preferred by the present respondent. Specific averment made therein being that the present petitioner on 10.05.2020, had starting digging the suit land, had stacked soil over the suit land and also raised a temporary tin shed/Dhara over the part of suit land. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the Executing Court. The said Local Commissioner submitted his report on 13.07.2022. Objections to the execution petition and to the report of the Local Commissioner were filed by the present petitioner. Aforesaid composite objections filed were dismissed, vide order dated 16.09.2022. 5. Admittedly, the said order has not been assailed. The same has therefore, attained finality. In view of order dated 16.09.2022, having attained finality the necessary corollary is an issuance of warrant of possession to the concerned Collector. In the aforesaid backdrop, I see no reason to interfere in the order dated 14.10.2022. 6. The execution proceedings which are supposed to be a handmaid of justice and subserve the cause of justice are, in fact, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct 2 ( 2025:HHC:27841 ) justice. The inordinate delay, which is universally caused in the execution of a decree, has been a cause of concern. 7. The executing court can never go behind the decree unless the court’s order is itself without jurisdiction. The executing court can allow objection under Section 47 of the Code if it is found that the decree is void ab initio and a nullity, apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of execution under law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its passing. 8. In view of aforesaid position of law, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court, whereby the maintainability of the execution proceedings pending consideration before the learned Trial Court can be doubted. In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed. 9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 02.09.2025. The execution proceedings be taken to its logical ends as expeditiously as possible, subject to the convenience of the learned trial Court. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge August 18, 2025 Shamsh Tabrez 3