2025:HHC:37819 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.253 of 2023 Decided on: 11.11.2025 Sh. Nota Ram … Petitioner Versus Sh. Bhag Chand … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of the submissions made here-in-above, the present petition may kindly be accepted with costs and the impugned orders dated 30.12.2016 & 29.06.2019 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, District Kullu, and attachment orders passed in Execution No. 14-X of 2017 whereby the property of the petitioner has been attached VIDE RAPAT No. 374 DATED 29.06.2019 by Tehsildar Chachyot(Gohar Distt. Mandi) may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:37819 may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. A perusal of the record demonstrates that on 30.12.2026, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. decreed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,00,000/-. As far as order dated 29.06.2019 is concerned, quashing of which is being sought by way of this petition, the same is not even appended with this petition. The petition itself has been filed in the year 2023. In light of the fact that on 30.12.2016, learned Trial Court was pleased to pass a decree in a Civil Suit before it, obviously challenge thereto could only have been raised under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code and not by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as has been done in the present case. Besides this, as far as order dated 29.06.2019 is concerned, as from the date of the filing of the petition, till date this order has not seen the light of the day. This Court is not aware as to what the order is. All that is referred in the petition is that it is an attachment order that has been passed in the execution petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that pursuant to the attachment order passed by the learned Executing Court, the property in issue was put to auction and it already stands sold on 10.05.2023. 3 2025:HHC:37819 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the petition carefully, all that this Court can observe is that not only is the petition misconceived but it is also an abuse of the process of law. 5. Firstly, this Court fails to understand as to how a decree is being assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and secondly, this Court fails to understand as to why the petitioner till date has not placed any order on record passed by the learned Executing Court on 29.06.2019. Otherwise also, there is no explanation as to why this order of attachment passed on 29.06.2019 was assailed after four years, i.e. in the year 2023. 6. Therefore, in this backdrop, as there is no occasion for this Court to exercise its power of Superintendence vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, present petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 11, 2025 (Rishi)