IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.620/2024 Date of Decision: 12th December, 2025. Dev Singh and Ors. .....Petitioners Versus Ishwar Dass ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.03.2024, passed by the Executing Court, whereby an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC by the present respondent/decree holder for executing the order dated 28.11.2003 and order dated 01.04.2008, has been allowed and a warrant of possession qua handing over of vacant possession of the suit land in favour of the respondent/decree holder has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. Vide judgment dated 18.08.1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nurpur, District Kangra, HP, an ex parte decree for the permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present petitioner/defendant permanently from raising any kind of construction or changing the nature of the land in any manner whatsoever till the suit land is partitioned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 by metes and bounds had been passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder. 4. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC was filed by the present respondent/decree holder qua execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1994. The same was allowed, vide judgment dated 28.11.2003. The relevant extract whereof is reads as under:- “In view of light of foresaid discussion on issue No.1, I direct the judgment debtors/respondents to remove the structure raised by them over the land comprised in khata No 176 min, khatuni No.446, khasra No.881, area measuring 0-01-29 HM (Gair Mumkin Abadi) situate in Mohal and Mauza Mohtali, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, HP within the period of one month from lay at their own costs. Failing to not obey the aforesaid directions of this court the judgment debtors/respondents will be liable to simple imprisonment for a period of one month on depositing substance allowances etc and the decree holder has the right to remove the structure with the help of the police at the costs of judgment debtors/respondents. Accordingly, this execution petition/application under order 21 Rule 32 CPC is hereby allowed. The file after its due completion/compliance be consigned to record room.” 5. For enforcing the judgment dated 28.11.2003, an application was filed by the present respondent/decree holder. The same was decided on 01.04.2008. The same was assailed by way of filing a Civil Revision bearing No.57 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 12.09.2017. 3 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application under Section 151 CPC for executing the orders dated 28.11.2003 and 01.04.2008 had been filed. In the same, a prayer for removal of the structure, raised over the suit land, with the help of the Police at the cost and expense of the petitioner/judgment debtor had been made. 7. In response, it was submitted that the alleged construction stands removed. However, nothing had been placed on record by the present petitioner/judgment debtor to demonstrate that the structure ordered to be removed, in terms of judgment dated 28.11.2003, stood removed. 8. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which in my considered view lays down the correct procedure to be followed in the case at hand. The same reads as follows:- “Order XXI Rule 32 CPC: Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction:- (5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the Court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be done may be done so far as practicable by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “the act required to be done” covers prohibitory as well as mandatory injunctions.] Illustration:- A, a person of little substance, erects a building which renders uninhabitable a family mansion belonging to B. A, in spite of his detention in prison and the attachment of his 4 property, declines to obey a decree obtained against him by B and directing him to remove the building. The Court is of opinion that no sum realizable by the sale of A's property would adequately compensate B for the depreciation in the value of his mansion. B may apply to the Court to remove the building and may recover the cost of such removal from A in the execution-proceedings.” 9. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, the direction issued by the Executing Court in the following terms in the impugned order dated 27.03.2024 needs to be modified: “In view of the same, order of this Court has to be executed qua handing over of vacant possession. Accordingly, let warrant of possession be issued qua the suit land in favour of the applicant for vacant possession of the land. List for report on 09.05.2024.” 10. The structure ordered to be removed, vide judgment dated 28.11.2003, shall now be got removed by the present respondent/decree holder with the assistance of the local police. The same shall be done at the cost of the petitioner/judgment debtors. Details of Cost so incurred, shall be furnished to the Executing Court and the same shall be recovered from the petitioner/judgment debtor. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 29.01.2026. The Executing Court shall ensure compliance of the aforesaid direction contained in Para 6 supra, within two months of 29.01.2026. 5 12. In aforesaid terms, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 12th December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)