IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 21 of 2025 Decided on: 27.05.2025 Ashwani Kumar Mehra. .…Petitioner. Versus Rajinder Kumar and Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Deep Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment on the ground that the petitioner has telephonically instructed him not to appear in this matter for the petitioner. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:16079 ) 2. Learned counsel for the respondents had placed on record a copy of order dated 15.03.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge, Chamba, H.P., whereby the execution petition, out of which the instant proceedings have arisen stands fully satisfied and finally disposed of. On filing of the aforesaid document, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to have instructions. 3. Today, since learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to obtain instructions for the reasons as stated by him, nonetheless, the proceedings in this petition cannot be continued further for the simple reason that the execution petition, out of which, these proceedings have arisen has already been decided by learned Executing Court. 4. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. 5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th May, 2025 Judge (sushma)