( 2025:HHC:33991 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.64 of 2025 Decided on: 7th October, 2025 Deepa Kumari .......Petitioner versus Narain Dass and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P in Execution Petition No.27-X/17. 2. Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner herein/decree holder has a decree in her favour, in terms of judgment and decree dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No.39 of 2006 titled as Deepa Kumari vs. Narain Dass and others. A decree was passed in favour of the decree holder, whereby the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:33991 ) 2 respondents herein/judgment debtors were restrained by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering in the suit land and a decree of mandatory injunction was also passed, directing the judgment debtors to demolish the structure raised by them on Khasra No.414/1 measuring 00- 00-03 bighas as per tatima Ext.PW-6/B, which was ordered to be made part of the decree. 3. The decree holder in the first instance filed an execution petition in the year 2013 to execute the aforesaid decree. It was alleged that despite the decree of mandatory injunction, the judgment debtors had not obeyed the same. In result, the learned executing Court had directed the execution of decree of mandatory injunction through the field agency. Finally, the general power of attorney of the decree holder had recorded his satisfaction as to the execution of the decree of mandatory injunction, which was later ratified by the decree holder herself. In this background, the execution petition was disposed of as having been withdrawn. 4. The decree holder again approached the executing Court in the year 2017 with the allegations that on the earlier occasion, the decree of mandatory injunction had not been fully satisfied as on the spot only a part of the structure was ( 2025:HHC:33991 ) 3 removed and the JDs had made a promise to remove the remaining part of their own, which they had failed to do. In the 2nd execution petition, it was also alleged that the JDs had collected the building material near the suit land and there was apprehension of further interference in the suit land by them. 5. During pendency of 2nd execution petition, with the consent of the parties, the Local Commissioner was appointed to demarcate the land by the learned executing Court. The Local Commissioner vide his report dated 27.01.2024, submitted to the learned executing Court, reported that the possession of the land compromised in Khasra No.414/1 measuring 00-00-03 bighas as per tatima attached had been handed over to the decree holder. The statements of the parties were also reported to have been recorded on the spot, which was also made part of the report. Subsequently, on 18.02.2025, the Local Commissioner submitted another report along-with his detailed demarcation report, whereby it was reported to the learned executing Court that no further act of interference was found to have been made by the JDs over the suit land. ( 2025:HHC:33991 ) 4 6. The learned executing Court vide impugned order has dismissed the execution petition mainly on the ground that the decree holder in the earlier execution petition had recorded her satisfaction as to execution of the decree of mandatory injunction and further that there was no further material to suggest any changed circumstance. 7. Learned counsel for the decree holder has contended that the impugned order is completely silent about the proceedings undertaken by the Local Commissioner on the basis of order passed by the executing Court, which prima-facie revealed that the decree of mandatory injunction had not been fully executed. He made reference to the statements of the parties recorded by the Local Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the cost imposed by the learned executing Court is without any justification as the decree holder had sufficient reasons to approach the executing Court again, as is evident from the proceedings conducted by the Local Commissioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/JDs has supported the impugned order. ( 2025:HHC:33991 ) 5 9. Having considered the rival submissions, I do not find this to be a fit case to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not in dispute that in the first execution petition, the decree holder had unambiguously accepted the execution of the decree of mandatory injunction and on its basis had withdrawn the execution petition. Thereafter, in the 2nd execution petition, though the decree holder came up with the plea that she had given earlier statement before the executing Court on believing the promise of JDs that they would remove the remaining part of construction of their own, but no material has been placed on record to substantiate such version. There is nothing on record to suggest that during the pendency of first execution petition, the decree of mandatory injunction had not been fully executed or the JDs had made any promise, as now alleged by the decree holder. Thus, in these circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order in so far as it deals with the decree of mandatory injunction. 10. Indisputably, the learned executing Court while passing the impugned order has not made any reference to the proceedings undertaken by the Local Commissioner on ( 2025:HHC:33991 ) 6 the asking of the executing Court itself, however, such an omission, in my considered view, will not change the fate of the matter for the reason that there is no evidence on record to prove any further act of interference in the suit land by the JDs. Rather, the report of the Local Commissioner makes it clear that no such act on the part of the JDs was found on the spot. 11. As regards the imposition of costs, it appears to be harsh. From the entirety of record, it cannot be said that act of the decree holder in approaching the executing Court 2nd time was wholly unjustified. It has been found on record that the JDs had initiated process of some construction work, which incidentally has been found to be their own land. The circumstances, as have emerged, are sufficient to infer that apprehension which led the decree holder to file the 2nd execution petition was not completely uncalled for. No matter that she was not able to prove her case. Thus, the only interference which is required in the impugned order is with respect to the costs imposed upon the decree holder. 12. In result, the petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order only to the extent of imposition of ( 2025:HHC:33991 ) 7 costs on the decree holder. Rest of the impugned order is affirmed. 13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. October 07, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge