( 2025:HHC:33770 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 6 of 2025. Decided on : 6 th October, 2025. Roshan Lal & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Onkar Chand & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sudheer Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). By way of instant revision petition, orders dated 08.08.2024 and 28.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Palampur in Execution Petition No. 10 of 2022, titled as Shri Onkar Chand & Ors. vs. Roshan Lal and Ors., have been assailed. 2. The original record of the Execution Petition No. 10 of 2022 has been requisitioned. Its perusal reveals that on 08.08.2024, learned executing Court after dismissing the objections of the judgment debtor had directed the decree to be executed by issuance of warrant of possession and the report of the executing agency was called for. On 07.09.2024, though the report was submitted to the learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:33770 ) executing Court showing execution of warrant but learned executing Court having remained dissatisfied with the report had called for further clarifications and reports. Finally, the learned executing Court came to the conclusion that the warrant of possession issued in pursuance to order dated 08.08.2024 had remained unexecuted and in this background the order dated 11.11.2024 was passed directing the issuance of warrant of possession again. On 16.12.2024, the report was submitted to learned executing Court according to which the warrant of possession had remained unexecuted. In the meanwhile, the instant petition was filed before this Court and further proceedings before the executing Court were deferred. 3. In view of the passing of subsequent orders on 11.11.2024, the earlier orders dated 08.08.2024 and 28.09.2024, which are under challenge in the instant proceedings have lost relevance and efficacy. Since, the decree under execution is still unexecuted there is nothing wrong in the subsequent order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned executing Court whereby the decree has been ordered to be executed by issuance of warrant of possession. Thus, no interference is required from this Court at this stage as the learned executing Court is carrying forward 3 ( 2025:HHC:33770 ) proceedings in accordance with law. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 4. Records be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 6th October, 2025. (jai)