2025:HHC:38121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.87 of 2022 Decided on: 13.11.2025 Rani Devi & others ...Petitioners Versus Madan Lal ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Meghna Singh, Advocate vice Mr.Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge(oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioners have taken exception to order dated 31st January, 2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in CMP No.117/2015. 2. The respondents are holders of decree passed in their favour on 15.09.2001 in Civil Suit No.95/98 by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. The decree reads as under: “I hereby pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction ***(see on reverse)***creating any new passage or taking forcible possession or any part of the land or in any other manner, whatsoever, interfering in the land comprising Khata No. 64 Khatoni Nos. 191 Khasra Nos 2550 and 2551 land 2 2025:HHC:38121 measuring 0-06-99 Hects. situated in Mohal and Mouja Ghuggar, Tehsil Palamour Distt. Kangra. (HP) as the defendants are strangers to the land and have no right, title or interest, whatsoever in the land and absolutely no concern with the same.” 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein was one of the defendants in Civil Suit No.95/98 and hence, after passing of the aforesaid decree, he was one of the judgment debtors. The decree so passed had attained finality. Petitioners No.1 to 3 herein have stepped into the shoes of late Shri Sarwan Kumar after his death. 4. The respondents-decree holders approached the Executing Court with an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure complaining violation of the decree by the petitioners herein. It was alleged that on 04.04.2015, the respondents in CMP No.117/2015 started to encroach upon the land in respect of which a decree of injunction had been passed against them. It was urged that the said respondents were requested not to encroach upon the land of the decree holders and also not to interfere in any manner in the said land, but the said respondents were adamant and had threatened that they were not bothered about any such order of the Court. 5. In reply to the application, the petitioners herein have not denied passing of decree against them in Civil Suit No.95/98. 3 2025:HHC:38121 As per the stand taken by them, the decree holders were raising construction in such a manner, which would have blocked the path/access to the houses of the judgment debtors and in case the decree holders were allowed to continue with the construction, the same would result in blockage of passage to properties of the judgment debtors. 6. Learned Executing Court framed the issues as under: “1. Whether respondents have intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the decree dated 15.09.2001 of this court passed in Civil suit No.95/98 titled as Madan lal etc. vs. Rajesh Kumar etc. as alleged? OPA 2. Whether present application is not maintainable as alleged?OPR 3. Whether applicant has no cause of action as alleged?OPR 4. Whether applicant has not come to the court with clean hands as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” 7. Issue No.1 was answered in affirmative, whereas all other issues were answered in negative. The application of the decree holders has accordingly been allowed by directing the enforcement of decree by way of attachment of the property of judgment debtors for a period of six months or till the obeyance shown to the decree, whichever is earlier. 4 2025:HHC:38121 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein/Judgment debtors has contended that the decree holders had failed to prove their allegations as they had not got the suit land identified, in accordance with law. He submitted that the decree holders examined only one of the decree holders besides another person, who allegedly was working as a mason and since the consequences of the allegations were penal, no adverse order could have been passed against the judgment debtors on such insufficient evidence. 10. Having gone through the record, I do not find any illegality or perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. 11. It has been established on record that the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction against the judgment debtors in Civil Suit No.95/98 had attained finality. By way of said decree, there was a clear prohibition against the judgment debtors that they would not cause any interference in the land of the decree holders as detailed in the decree. The judgment debtors have taken a specific stand that the decree holders had tried to raise construction in such a manner that would have blocked the 5 2025:HHC:38121 passage to their houses/lands. It is not the case of judgment debtors that the construction, which allegedly was being raised by the decree holders, was not on the land, which was subject matter of the decree, referred to hereinabove. The judgment debtors have also not led any evidence to establish that the construction being raised by the decree holders was not on their own land or was of such a nature which could not be included within the ambit of decree passed in their favour. The only witness examined on behalf of judgment debtors is Smt. Rani Devi, who was one of the judgment debtors. She has reiterated the same defence as raised in reply to the application. 12. Thus, on preponderance of evidence the view taken by learned Executing Court is a possible view and needs no inference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 13. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge November 13, 2025 (vt)