IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.382 of 2020 Decided on 06th October, 2025 Sanjeev Malhotra and another …Petitioners Versus Usha Seth and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- “That the impugned order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Shimla in execution Petition No.62-10 of 2018 titled Usha Seth vs. Archana Seth and another may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside.” 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Executing Court, which order reads as under:- 2 “Today again no objections filed by the JD No.1 despite availing several opportunities for the same. There is on record an application filed by the applicant/DH under Order 21 Rule 35 read with Section 151 CPC for executing warrant of possession and for breaking/open locks put inside and out-side the concerned premises. Record reveals that in the present case vide order dated 22.06.2019, this Court had ordered to issue "warrant of possession" qua which the report of the bailiff is on record. Therefore, there is no requirement to file any reply to said application. Hence, consideration held. This order shall dispose of said application. It is averred that the Decree Holder (here-in- after to be referred as "the DH") along with officials of the Court had visited the premises-in-dispute on 23.07.2019 for the purpose of execution of the warrants of possession, however, they were restrained/obstructed from doing so by Sanjeev Malhotra and Punam as they tried to obstruct the officials of the court by tying their dogs on the entrance of the premises and threatened the DH and court officials with dire consequences, in case they enter the premises. Further that, the DH apprehending quarrel, asked for help from police station Sadar Shimla and the SHO concerned sent a team of eight persons on the spot, however, they refused to interfere in the matter saying that they have no orders of court as 3 such they cannot help the DH in getting the possession and they are on the spot only to prevent any untoward Malhotra and Punam openly threatened the DH and officials of the court that they will break their heads and loosen dogs upon them. Further that, the premises in dispute have been covered by a mesh wire fencing which is locked by a gate from inside and outside and is also locked from all sides and for this reason the court order regarding breaking of locks is required so that possession of the premises could be obtained peacefully, without any hindrance. It is averred that no prejudice will be caused to the opposite party in case the present application is allowed. On these grounds it is averred that the present application may kindly be allowed. The application is duly accompanied with an affidavit. Heard. Record perused. Perusal of the record corroborates the contentions made in the present application qua issuance of the warrant of possession dated 22.06.2019. There is on record the report of bailiff which corroborates the contentions made in the present application. It has specifically been mentioned in the report that when the official(s) of Court visited the spot for executing the warrant of possession then Sanjeev Malhotra and Punam restrained/obstructed them by locking the premises and by threatening them with dire consequences and they set free the dogs, used abusive language causing nuisance. It is evident from the report of the bailiff that cognizable offence(s) 4 seems to have been committed by Sanjeev Malhotra and Punam. Therefore, the SHO concerned is directed to lodge the FIR against Sanjeev Malhotra and Punam, as per rules and to investigate the matter. For the above stated reasons, the present application is allowed, permission is granted to break/open the locks of the concerned premises for the execution of the warrant of possession, after due identification and as per rules. The SHO concerned is directed to provide adequate police assistance during the executing of the warrant of possession. Application stands disposed of. Be tagged with main case file after due completion. List for 06.01.2020. (Vishal Kaundal) Civil Judge, Court MNo.3, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. Taken up again: (04:15 P.M) 05.12.2019 Present: Sh. Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for the DH. Mr. Giriraj Chauhan, ld. Advocate, for the JD No.1. JD No.2 stated to be dead. At this stage, learned counsel for the JD No.1 appeared before the Court and filed objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of JD No.1. In the interest of justice, the present execution be listed for reply to objections and consideration for 06.12.2019.” 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 05.12.2019 as well as other orders appended with the petition and has submitted that the limited grievance of the petitioners herein is that the direction that has been issued by the learned Executing Court with regard to the lodging of FIR against the petitioners herein is not sustainable in law as while passing this direction, learned Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that maximum the Court could have ordered was that it could have provided police assistance but no such direction that has been issued in the impugned order could have been passed. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of the Court to the other orders appended with the petition submitted that as the decree holder was trying to get the decree executed vis-à-vis the property of the petitioners qua which there is no decree, it was in these circumstances that the petitioners were trying to protect their interest. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the order passed by the learned Executing Court calls for no interference for the reason that as the 6 petitioners were causing obstruction in the mode and manner as is depicted in the order itself, the learned Court was well within its jurisdiction to pass the order as has been passed. Learned counsel further submitted that otherwise also the direction is only to lodge the FIR as per rule and to investigate the matter, therefore, it is the investigation which would reveal the true picture and, therefore also, the impugned order calls for no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 6. It is a matter of record that in the course of the execution of the decree in favour of the respondents herein, the Court officials and other officials reported that obstruction was being caused in the execution of the decree by the petitioners herein. The petitioners threatened the Court officials with dire consequences as is also mentioned in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also informed the Court that an FIR has otherwise also been registered against the petitioners at the behest of the bailiff of the Court relating to 7 another obstruction caused by them on a subsequent date and the trial is going on in the said case. 7. This Court is of the considered view that as all these facts demonstrate that the petitioners were taking the law into their own hands, therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court in terms whereof the SHO concerned has been directed to lodge the FIR against the petitioners who were causing obstruction in the performance of the duty of the Court officials. Therefore, as this Court does not find the order to be perverse or one where the learned Court has exceeded its jurisdiction, this petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and FIR if lodged be investigated in a free and fair manner. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 06, 2025 (Vinod)