HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 26.09.2025 Pronounced on: 30.09.2025 Case No.:- CR No. 6/2025 CM No. 2156/2025 c/w CR No. 26/2025 CM No. 4909/2025 Bilal Ahmed & Ors …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate. Vs Bashir Ahmed & Anr .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate. Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners (hereinafter to be referred to as „judgment debtors‟), through the medium of the RevisionPetition CR No. 6/2025, have challenged order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the learned Munsiff, Thanamandi (hereinafter to be referred to as “Executing Court”) whereby warrant of possession in respect of the shop situated at village Thanamandi has been issued. Through the medium of Revision Petition CR No. 26/2025, the petitioners have challenged order dated Naresh Kumar 2025.10.06 14:00 2 CR No. 6/2025 11.04.2025 passed by the Executing Court whereby the Execution Petition filed by the decree holder/respondent has been declared to have been satisfied. 2. It appears that a suit came to be filed by respondent (decree holder) against the petitioners and proforma respondent No. 2 (judgment debtors) before the court of learned Sub Judge, Rajouri. In the said suit, the decree holder sought a decree for possession of a single storeyed shop bounded as under: North : Shops of Nazir Ahmed Ganai; South : Land of Manzoor Ahmed Father of defendant No. 1 to 5 and husband of defendant No. 6 under the possession of Gref Department. East : Land of above said Manzoor Ahmed under the possession of Gref Department. West : Road Rajouri-Thanamandi to Bafliaz. 3. The suit shop was stated to be situated on land measuring one marla in survey No. 113 min at village Thanamandi, Tehsil Thanamandi District Rajouri. Vide judgment dated 30.09.2003 passed by the trial court, the suit was decreed in favour of the decree holder, who was held entitled to possession of the suit shop being owner of the same. The said judgment came to be challenged by the petitioners-judgment debtors by way of an appeal before the learned District Judge, Rajouri. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate court 3 CR No. 6/2025 in terms of judgment dated 20.04.2009. The judgment debtors filed second appeal before this Court,which was also dismissed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 17.11.2009. 4. The decree holder filed an Execution Petition before the court of learned Sub Judge, Rajouri, which came to be transferred later on to the court of learned Munsiff, Thanamandi. The Execution Petition was dismissed by the Executing Court vide its order dated 20.03.2013 on the ground that description of the shop existing on spot did not tally fully with the description of the shop given in the plaint. The said order of the Executing Court came to be challenged by the decree holder before this Court by way of a Civil Revision Petition No. 33/2013. The said revision petition was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 10.11.2023 and the learned Executing Court was directed to execute the decree in respect of the suit shop which is fully described in the plaint and identifiable on spot. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, the learned Executing Court passed an order dated 27.02.2024 whereby after considering the objections of the judgment debtors, the learned Executing Court came to the conclusion 4 CR No. 6/2025 that the suit property is fully identifiable on spot as per the description given in the plaint and the report dated 05.09.2011 of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Rajouri. Accordingly, Tehsildar, Thanamandi was directed to execute the decree in respect of the suit shop. A warrant of possession was issued for enabling Tehsildar, Thanamandi to put the decree holder in possession of the suit shop. However, despite issuance of warrant of possession by the learned Executing Court, it seems that the decree could not be executed on spot, as such, another order came to be passed by the learned ExecutingCourt on 18.03.2025 whereby fresh warrant of possession was issued and Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Rajouri was directed to execute the warrant of possession and submit a compliance report. It is this order, which is under challenge by way of RevisionPetitionCR No. 6/2025 filed by the judgment debtors. It also appears that pursuant to order dated 18.03.2025, possession of the suit shop has been handed over to the decree holder, which fact is recorded in order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Executing Court. The said order is under challenge in Revision Petition CR No. 26/2025. 6. The main ground that has been urged by the judgment debtors/petitioners for assailing the impugned order passed 5 CR No. 6/2025 by the Executing Court is that description of the suit shop, as given in the plaint, does not tally with description of the shop given in the reports of the Executing Officers inasmuch as, the suit shop as per the contents of the plaint is located in khasra No. 113 min whereas as per the reports of the Executing Officers furnished from time to time during the execution proceedings, the shop, which is under the possession of the decree holder, is located in khasra No. 383 and 168 of village Thanamandi. On this basis, it is being contended that despite availability of these reports and despite the learned Executing Court taking note of these reports, the warrant of possession in respect of the shop of judgment debtors has been issued by virtue of the impugned order dated 18.03.2025, which virtually amounts to going behind the decree. It has been contended that despite stay of execution proceedings granted by this Court vide interim order dated 11.04.2025, the executing court has handed over possession of the suit shop to the decree holder in terms of impugned order dated 11.04.2025. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 6 CR No. 6/2025 8. The issue with regard to identity of the shop regarding which warrant of possession has been issued by the Executing Court, has been subject matter of deliberation and determination before this Court in the Revision Petition bearing CR No. 33/2013, which has been decided by a detailed judgment dated 10.11.2023. The said judgment has attained finality. It has been specifically held by this Court in the said judgment that description of the shop, as mentioned in the plaint, completely tallies with the description of the shop as mentioned in the report dated 04.02.2013 of the Executing Officer. In this regard, the observations made by this Court in para (20) of the said judgment are relevant to the context and the same are reproduced as under: “20. If the description of the shop as mentioned in the plaint is compared with the description of the shop as mentioned in report dated 04.02.2013, it is found that the description of the suit shop as well as shop existing on spot is same, as was initially mentioned by the Assistant Commissioner (Rev), Rajouri in its report dated 05.09.2011. So far as eastern side is concerned, vacant land has been mentioned in both the plaint and report dated 04.02.2013 but in the plaint, the vacant land has been shown to be that of Manzoor Ahmed under the possession of GREF, whereas in the report dated 04.02.2013, the vacant land has been reflected as owned by the State. Thus, it is evident that the vacant land is mentioned on the eastern side of the property as described in the plaint as well as in the report. Similarly, on the southern side in the plaint, the vacant land 7 CR No. 6/2025 of Manzoor Ahmed has been mentioned whereas in the report dated 04.02.2013, path/road leading to Police Station, Thanamandi has been mentioned. It is nowhere mentioned in the report dated 04.02.2013 as to whether the path or road is existing on the State land or has been constructed on the private land. Even otherwise, it is not at all relevant once the property was capable of identification on spot in light of description mentioned in the plaint and in fact, was rightly identified by the Assistant Commissioner (Rev) in its report dated 05.09.2011, when no objection in respect of the location as well as identification of the suit property was raised by the respondents in the written statement. The Executing Court was only concerned in respect of the identification of the property and once the northern and western side of the suit property tallied with the position existing on spot even as per the findings of the Executing Court, more particularly in view of the existence of the shop of one Nasir Ahmed Ganai, it could not have been held by the learned Executing Court that the description of the suit shop did not tally with the position existing on spot. It assumes significance as identification of the property was never disputed by the respondents in any court.” 9. After making the aforesaid observations, this Court noted that with the passage of time, the surroundings of the said property may have changed but once the description of the property was sufficient for its identification, the learned Executing Court could not have rejected the Execution Petition by observing that on two sides, description of the property did not tally with the position existing on spot. 8 CR No. 6/2025 10. While dealing with the contention of the judgment debtors that the shop, which is in their possession, is located in survey No. 383/168 and not in survey No. 133 min of village Thanamandi, this Court, vide its judgment dated 10.11.2023, has made the following observations: “Before this Court proceeds ahead to consider the above mentioned issue, it needs to be noted that the controversy sought to be settled by the Executing Court subsequently, was in fact invited by the Executing Court itself by confusing itself with the various reports from the Assistant Commissioner (Rev), Rajouri, Nazir of its own court and Reader of the District Court Rajouri. Once the report dated 05.09.2011 was submitted by the Assistant Commissioner (Rev) Rajouri that the boundaries of the suit property tallied with spot position, the learned Executing Court ought to have directed the concerned officer to execute the decree but it appears that the learned Executing Court in compliance to the order dated 03.09.2011 directed the execution of decree strictly in terms of the order dated 03.09.2011. It needs to be noted that in the objections to the execution petition filed by the respondents, it was only stated by them that there is a lot of variation in the description in the suit property, whereas the fact remains that in the written statement filed by the respondents before the learned trial court no such objections qua the location as well as identification of the suit were raised by the respondents and rather it was the positive case of the respondents that they had constructed the suit shop on the land comprising survey No. 113 min at village Thanamandi, obtained by them by virtue of agreement to sell dated 29.06.1976 from Vishwanath. The defendants/respondents contested the suit all along till the same was decreed by the learned trial court. Before the 9 CR No. 6/2025 1stAppellate court, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC was also filed by the respondents that the suit shop was constructed in survey No. 383/168 and not in survey No. 113 min in village Thanamandi, a stand contrary to the pleadings in the written statement. The contention of the respondents was rejected by the 1stAppellate Court with observation that it was an afterthought. The respondents initially laid their claim that they had constructed the shop on survey No. 113 min, which the respondents could not establish by any cogent evidence. The description of the suit shop has been mentioned in the plaint and the respondents never ever disputed the location as well description of the suit shop either before the Trial Court or the Appellate Courts.” 11. In the face of afore-quoted observations of this Court made in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, it is clear that the contention of the petitioners/judgment debtors that the shop, which is in their possession is located in survey No. 383/168 whereas, the decree has been passed in respect of a shop which is located in khasra No. 113 min, has already been dealt with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, whereafter the Court has come to the conclusion that the shop, which is in possession of the judgment debtors is the same shop in respect of which the decree was passed. 12. The petitioners/judgment debtors after having failed to convince this Court, have again raised similar objections 10 CR No. 6/2025 before the Executing Court. The said objections were rejected by the Executing Court by passing a detailed and reasoned order dated 27.02.2024. Even thereafter the judgment debtors did not back out and they have again raised similar objections before the Executing Court on 18.03.2025, which were rejected by the Executing Court again by virtue of the impugned order. 13. The judgment debtors have now tried to test their luck once again before this Court by filing the present petitions by raising the issues, which have repeatedly been decided and determined by the courts at various levels. Not only this, the judgment debtors/petitioners have challenged even the order whereby the executing court has recorded satisfaction of execution petition on the ground that warrant of possession has been executed on spot. The approach of the judgment debtors in re-agitating the same issue repeatedly by taking resort to repeated litigations is nothing but an abuse of process of court for which the judgment debtors/petitioners are required to be dealt with sternly. 14. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in these petitions, which are nothing but an abuse of process of the court. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- 11 CR No. 6/2025 each, which shall be deposited by the petitioners/ judgment debtors with the Advocates’ Welfare Fund within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which the Registry shall list this matter before the Court for the limited purpose of recovery of the costs. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 30.09.2025 Naresh/Secy. Whether order is speaking : Yes Whether order is reportable : No