( 2025:HHC:45801 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 199 of 2024 Decided on: 19.12.2025 ____________________________________________________ Raghubir ……….. petitioner Versus Ranbir Singh and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 2(a) to 2(e) and 3. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 19/24, whereby the appeal has been dismissed being not maintainable and the order dated 4.1.2024 has not been considered with a prayer to set aside the judgment dated 3.12.2024 and order dated 4.1.2024 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu in Objection Petition No. 1 of 2023 whereby the objections filed by the petitioner have been dismissed 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, reveal that a civil suit for possession, alternatively for possession by way of partition, was filed by Ram Lal against Lal Chand and others on 20-06-1988. The suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul &Spiti at Kullu, vide judgment and decree dated 04-11-1991. Ram Lal assailed this decision in Civil Appeal No. 73 of 1991, which was allowed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28-03-1994, granting the alternate relief of possession. Lal Chand then preferred RSA No. 201 of 1994 before the High Court, which partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree of the first Appellate Court, holding that the plaintiff’s share was 2/3rd in half of the total property in Khasra No. 1046, while the defendant’s share was 1/3rd in half thereof. This judgment attained finality. 4. Subsequently, the decree holder filed an application under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC for passing a final decree, which was decreed on 05-07-2003. In the ensuing execution proceedings, the judgment debtor filed objections under Section 47 of the CPC, primarily contending that the ex-parte proceedings in the suit were illegal, that no proper demarcation was conducted by the revenue agency after associating him, and that the demarcation report was manipulated to wrongly include his structure within the disputed area. It was further contended that the executing court failed to frame an issue or allow evidence to 3 ascertain whether his house actually fell within the suit land. These objections were dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 04-01-2024, which also issued a warrant of possession. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his objections, the judgment debtor preferred a first appeal, which too has been dismissed, as being non maintainable. 5. Therefore, the present revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside judgement dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Appellate Court and also order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Executing Court. 6. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 7. The present revision petition under Section 115 CPC is without any merit as no appeal would lie against the impugned order dated 3.12.2024. 8. Regarding the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 of the Executing Court, the revisionist's objections under Section 47 CPC are without substance. The record establishes that the final decree of partition, based on the Local Commissioner's confirmed report dated 29.05.2009, was passed on 13.08.2009 while the revisionist was represented by counsel Sh. Aman Sood, who expressly raised no objections against the Local Commissioner’s 4 report. His belated assertions of ignorance and manipulation are legally untenable. 9. His further contention qua manipulation of the demarcation report is also legally untenable, as he failed to raise any objection at the appropriate time when the report was considered; indeed, his counsel specifically stated at the bar that no objections were intended to be filed. Consequently, the report was confirmed. 10. The revisionist’s plea that the decree does not mention his house and that this issue was not raised in the suit is without merit. It is apparent that the construction may have been erected after the final decree was passed or during the execution phase. The execution record reflects that multiple warrants of possession were issued. Revenue officials, in their reports, confirmed delivery of partial possession to the decree holders, while noting that possession of Khasra No. 1046/1 measuring 0- 0-10 bighas where the revisionist’s house stands, remains withheld. These officials, having acted under court authority, are presumed to have performed their duties properly. The unsupported allegation of connivance is accordingly rejected. The record firmly affirms the decree holders’ right to possession of the allotted land, which the revisionist must vacate. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the objections raised by the revisionist are devoid of substance and are 5 accordingly dismissed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2024, dismissing the objections under Section 47 CPC and issuing the warrant of possession, suffers from no illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 12. This revision is confined solely to examining the legality of the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Executing Court. The challenge to the appellate decree is hereby declared not maintainable and is rejected as such. Accordingly, the present revision without any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th December, 2025 tarun