IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 191 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.12.2025 Rajiv Gupta .....Petitioner. Versus Amritsaria Mal. …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 06.10.2025, whereby an application filed under Section 151 CPC and another application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, have been dismissed by the learned Executing Court. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 3. Eviction order sought to be executed, in the case at hand, is dated 04.08.2017. In furtherance of the execution proceedings filed by the present petitioner/decree holder, a warrant of possession had been issued by the Executing Court. As per the report of the bailiff and as admitted by the present petitioner/decree holder, possession of the demised premises had been handed over to the petitioner/decree holder on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 23.06.2025 at 12:30 PM, in the presence of Mr. Tarun Gupta and Mr. Rajesh Bansal. 4. However, on the very same date, locks affixed by the petitioner/decree holder on the demised premises were broken open and fresh locks had been put on the demised premises. In this respect, a complaint was made to the SHO, Police Station Sadar, Shimla on 23.06.2025 at 7:00 PM itself. Copy of the complaint along with its true typed copy is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. 5. The warrant of possession report prepared by the Bailiff on 23.06.2025, was received in the Court on 01.07.2025. On 01.07.2025, the facts and attending circumstances narrated herein above were brought to the notice of the Executing Court by moving an application under Section 151 CPC. In the application, it was prayed that a warrant of possession qua the demised premises be issued and the same be got executed with the assistance of the Police by breaking/open the locks put thereupon. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC was also filed before the Executing Court on 02.09.2025. 6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the Executing Court had dismissed both the applications filed under Section 151 and under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, filed by the present petitioner/decree holder on the ground that warrant of 3 possession was duly executed on 23.06.2025 and hence, the execution is deemed to be fully satisfied. 7. Warrant of possession, in the case at hand, was executed on 23.06.2025, in pursuance whereto possession of the demised premises was handed over to the present petitioner/decree holder in the presence of one Sh. Tarun Gupta and Sh. Rajesh Bansal at 12:30 PM. The said report was furnished to the Executing Court on 01.07.2025. 8. Besides the aforesaid, on 01.07.2025, it was brought to the notice of the Executing Court that on 23.06.2025 itself, the possession of the demised premises had been taken over by someone else by breaking the locks fixed by the present petitioner/decree holder on the demised premises by affixing new locks thereupon. Complaint in this respect, as has been stated supra, had been made to the concerned police authority on 23.06.2025 itself. 9. In terms of Order 21 Rule 35 CPC, a warrant to give possession of the suit property, in the case at hand, is given to the Bailiff concerned in Form No.11 contained in Appendix-E. A report qua satisfaction of delivery of the suit premises, in terms of the warrant given to the bailiff dated 23.06.2025, was returned and placed before the Executing Court on 01.07.2025. However, on the said date, the fact of dispossession in the evening of 23.06.205 was brought to the notice of the Executing Court. Hence, it is evident that the non-satisfaction of the 4 decree was immediately brought to the notice of the Executing Court. The finding recorded by the Executing Court, in the case at hand, that the decree stands satisfied is therefore incorrect, without any basis and contrary to the facts placed on record. The satisfaction of the decree in the case at hand was not that of the bailiff, but of the Executing Court, post considering all the facts brought on record. 10. The subsequent application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 moved by the present petitioner/decree-holder, wherein he complains about the resistance or obstruction offered to the decree-holder in his attempt at obtaining possession of property and who wants such obstruction or resistance to be removed which otherwise is an impediment in his way, a lis arises between the decree-holder applicant under Order XXI Rule 97 on the one hand and such obstructionist or resisting party on the other. When such a lis arises, it has to be adjudicated upon as enjoined by Order XXI Rule 97 sub-rule (2). The procedure for adjudicating such a lis has to be called out from the remaining succeeding Rules of Order XXI. In this respect, reference can be made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in 1997 (3) SCC 694, titled Brahmdeo Chaudhary VS. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Anr. 11. As the Executing Court, in the case at hand, has refused to adjudicate upon the applications filed under Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the case at hand filed by the present 5 petitioner/decree holder, in my considered view, the Executing Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. In view thereof, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 is quashed and set aside. Application filed under Section 151 CPC and Order 21 Rule 97 are restored to their original numbers. The same be decided in accordance with law. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Executing Court on 30.12.2025. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 18th December, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)