IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 197 of 2023 Decided on 22nd July 2025 Kali Ram …Petitioner Versus Sukh Ram …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Gulati, Advocate, vice Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Suneet Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 07.07.2022 and order dated 28.02.2023 and subsequent proceedings vide which landed property of the present petitioner has been ordered to be sold by way of public auction may kindly be set aside.” 2. A perusal of the documents appended with the petition demonstrates that as the petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor has not satisfied the decree; it is in this 2 backdrop that the learned Executing Court has passed the necessary orders for the sale of the immovable property of the Judgment Debtor by way of auction to satisfy the decree. Order dated 28.02.2023 reads as under:- “Sale proclamation issued against the immovable property of JD received back unexecuted with report that the immovable property of JD was listed for auction for 17.01.2023, however, no bidder had turned up at the auction. In the given circumstances and in order to satisy the present execution petition as per order dated 06.09.2022, let such proclamation shall be again made till 20.04.2023. Thereafter, the property shall be sold after expiration at least 15 days from the date on which the copy of proclamation has been affixed on the Court house of this court and in all cases such sale shall be made by way of public auction on 10.05.2023. Thereafter, report be sent to this Court till 17.06.2023. Ahlmad to do all needful.” 3. In the light of the fact that the Judgment Debtor has not satisfied the decree till date and no cogent explanation is coming forth as to why needful is not being done, though, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the entire amount in one go, this Court does not finds any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to settle the matter with the respondent provided he 3 approaches the respondent and pays the total amount i.e., due to the respondent/decree holder within a period of two weeks from today. In case, needful is not done within two weeks, then, this observation made by the Court shall lose its efficacy. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22, 2025 (Vinod)