2025:HHC:38741 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.301 of 2025 Decided on: 17.11.2025 Surender … Petitioner Versus Sh. Rajinder Singh & others (name of respondent No.1, namely, Smt. Durgi stands deleted vide order dated 10.09.2025) … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate, vice Mr. Nitin Misra, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 9. Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.10. Ms. Nandita, Advocate, for respondents No.13 to 15 and 17. Names of respondents No.1 and 16 stand deleted, vide order dated 10.09.2025. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, the objections filed by the present petition have been dismissed. 2, On the last date of hearing, the case was deferred as a statement was made before the Court that the parties were trying to amicably settle the matter. However, today the Court stands 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:38741 informed that no settlement has been arrived at between the parties. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the order under challenge, this Court seems no reason to interfere in the order under challenge. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as there are more than one Judgment Debtors, therefore, the decree has to be satisfied proportionately against all the Judgment Debtors cannot be accepted, for the reason that the Decree Holder can always exercise the right of having the decree satisfied in the mode and manner permissible in law, more so in light of the fact that the decree is both joint and several. This could not be disputed during the course of the arguments by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the decree was joint and several. 5. In light of this fact, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Executing Court which has rightly rejected the objections filed against the attachment, present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 17, 2025 (Rishi)