IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 39 of 2023. Decided on : 12 th November, 2025. Amar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Abhi Ram & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the respondent: Respondents are already exparte. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed to assail order dated 19th November, 2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan in Execution Petition No. 10/10 of 2014/13. 3. The petitioners herein had filed an application under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Solan (hereafter referred to as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “Executing Court”), with the allegations that the respondents had violated the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 310/1 of 1998. It was alleged that the respondents had started excavation of the land for raising construction and for such purpose had engaged a JCB machine. According to petitioners, the matter had been reported to the police. It was alleged that though the respondents were requested not to violate the decree but they were adamant in taking the law in their hands. The period of violation of decree was mentioned as 01.04.2013 onward. 4. The respondents had filed reply and had contested the averments made in the application. The respondents specifically denied to have violated the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 310/1 of 1998. 5. Learned Executing Court had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondents have disobeyed the judgment and decree of the court despite of having opportunity to obey the same, as alleged?OPP 3 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR. 3. Relief. 6. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Executing Court has dismissed the application of the petitioners for want of sufÏcient evidence in proof of the allegations. Admittedly, except for the self serving statement of one of the petitioner no other evidence was led to prove the allegations by the petitioners. For want of corroboration to the version of petitioner Jia Lal, learned Executing Court found the evidence insufÏcient to indict the respondents. 7. Having gone through the records, I have not found any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Executing Court. The view formed by the learned Executing Court is one of the possible views and this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction will not interfere in such possible view, even there may be possibility of availability of any other view in alternative. 8. Noticeably, one of the allegation of the petitioners was that the respondents had started raising construction on the suit land for violation of the decree. That being so, the allegation 4 being of physical fact could easily have been proved by the petitioners had it existed. The fact that the petitioners had not made any effort to lead evidence except for examining one of the petitioners, as noticed above, itself suggested the falsity of their claim. 9. In result, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 12th November, 2025. (jai)