( 2025:HHC:16616 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 112 of 2024. Decided on : 29 th May, 2025. Santosh Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Gian Chand & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Respondents are already ex-parte. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 25.09.2023 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sarkaghat in CMA No. 1 of 2016, whereby, the application of the petitioner herein under Order 21, Rule 32 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) has been dismissed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:16616 ) 3. The petitioner herein is the decree holder in Civil Suit No. 12/2011 decided by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Sarkaghat vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2015. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed in favour of the decree holder and judgment debtors were restrained from raising any construction on the land comprised in Khat No. 21min/19, Khatauni No.55/53, Khasra No.649, measuring 0-06-97 hectares in Mohal Gamdhol, Illaqua Bhadrota, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. 4. Decree holder approached the learned executing Court with an application under Order 21, Rule 32 read with Section 151 of the Code with the allegations that the judgment debtors had raised construction on Khasra No. 649 in violation of the decree dated 01.04.2015. The application was contested by the judgment debtors. 5. Learned executing Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondents have been disobeying the judgment and decree in question?OPDH 2. Whether the decree holder is entitled for relief, of civil imprisonment or attachment of property of JDs, as prayed for?OPDH 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPJD 4. Relief. 3 ( 2025:HHC:16616 ) 6. Issues No. 1 and 2 were decided in negative, whereas issue No.3 was answered in affirmative. In result, the petition was dismissed. 7. The decree holder examined five witnesses including himself. On the other hand, JD No.1 examined himself as his sole witness. 8. On appreciation of evidence, learned executing Court did not find sufficient material to hold that the decree dated 01.04.2015 had been violated by the JDs. Learned executing Court concluded that the decree holder had failed to establish any new construction having been been raised by the judgment debtors on Khasra No. 649. 9. The impugned order clearly reveals that the decree holder had not got the land comprised in Khasra No.649 identified by means of demarcation in order to establish his case. In absence of evidence to this effect, the findings by learned trial Court cannot be faulted for simple reason that without demarcation it could not have been established that the construction, if any, raised by the judgment debtors was on khasra No.649. The next question whether the construction was raised by the judgment debtors after passing of decree would gain relevance only if it was 4 ( 2025:HHC:16616 ) established that the construction was raised on Khasra No.649. 10. In light of above discussion, I find no material to differ with the findings recorded by learned executing Court which are duly borne from the record. In result, the petition is dismissed. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 29th May, 2025. (jai)