IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 546 of 2025 Decided on: 16.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Bashakhu Ram ……….. petitioner Versus Tara Chand and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : M. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocates. For the respondents : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 1.9.2025 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi District Mandi, whereby objections filed in the execution petition by the present petitioner/judgment debtor has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 3. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the decree dated 13.5.2002 passed in Civil Suit No. 229/1998 of which is sought to be executed by the respondent/decree holder. The same is being reproduced here-in-below for a ready reference:- “It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Defendants are directed to demolish, which has been raised over the suit land, which 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 is 1 feet in width 16 feet in length and 10 feet in height and which is depicted in the spot map Exhibit-PW/B from point R to Q on their own cost. They are further restrained from causing any sort of interference over the suit land through decree of permanent prohibitory injunctions. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear cost of the suit on their own. Spot map Exhibit-PW-2/B shall form part of the decree sheet”. 4. The sole objection raised qua the execution pertaining to the aforesaid decree is that insofar as the present petitioner/judgment debtor is concerned that parties to the present lis had entered into a compromise in Civil Suit No. 181/1991 dated 9.3.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi, H.P. The same according to the petitioner/judgment debtor pertained to Khasra No. 86. 5. The aforesaid objection in my considered view has rightly been rejected by the Executing Court. It is a settled principle of law that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree which is sought to be executed. By virtue of a reference to a compromise entered into inter se the parties in a previous litigation, the petitioner/judgment debtor intends to go behind the decree sought to be executed. 6. From a perusal of the judgment and decree dated 13.5.2002 passed in Civil Suit No. 229 of 1998, it is evident that neither of the parties had made any reference to the alleged compromise entered into inter se the parties in Civil Suit No. 181 of 1991 dated 09.03.1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Mandi, H.P. Hence at this stage, the present petitioner/judgment debtor is precluded from raising the aforesaid contention. 3 7. In view thereof, I see no merit in the present petition, hence, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge September 16, 2025 tarun