IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.560 of 2025 Decided on 22nd September, 2025 Shelinder Kalra …Petitioner Versus B.R. Thakur and others …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aditya Kaushal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “In the light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nahan (Annexure P-1) in Execution Petition having registration No.27 of 2019 and the execution petition, in so far as it pertains to the petitioner, may kindly be dismissed and to grant any other relief deemed just and proper.” 2 2. After making his submissions for some time, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to withdraw this petition, as the petitioner intends to file an application for recalling the ex parte decree that was passed against him. 3. As far as the execution proceedings are concerned, it is observed that awaiting the outcome of the proceedings which may be filed by the petitioner for recalling of the ex parte decree, if amount of Rs.3 lac is deposited by the petitioner before the learned Executing Court on the next date of hearing, then, the learned Executing Court shall direct the investment of the said amount by way of an FDR and the release of the amount will await the outcome of the proceedings that are intended to be filed by the petitioner. This Court clarifies that if no application is filed for recalling of the decree by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, then, this order will loose its efficacy. This Court further orders that simply because, this Court is directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.3 lac before the learned Executing Court, this does not means that this Court has fixed the liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.3 lac only. This is 3 just a tentative amount which the petitioner has been directed to deposit so that the interest of respondent No.1 herein is protected. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that in case an amount of Rs.3 lac is not deposited by the petitioner before the Executing Court on the next date of hearing, then, even if the petitioner prefers any application seeking recall of the ex parte order, the Executing Court shall execute the decree uninfluenced by the said order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 22, 2025 (Vinod)