2025:HHC:31851 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.50 of 2025 a/w CMPMO Nos.51 and 52 of 2025 Decided on: 16.09.2025 CMPMO No.50 of 2025 The Executive Engineer, Salooni Division, HPPWD (B&R), Salooni, Distt. Chamba, H.P. … Petitioner Versus Sh. Baija Ram … Respondent CMPMO No.51 of 2025 The Executive Engineer, Salooni Division, HPPWD (B&R), Salooni, Distt. Chamba, H.P. … Petitioner Versus Sh. Bheelo Ram … Respondent CMPMO No.52 of 2025 The Executive Engineer, Salooni Division, HPPWD (B&R), Salooni, Distt. Chamba, H.P. … Petitioner Versus Sh. Bhagat Ram … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, in all the petitions. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dev Raj, Advocate, in all the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As common issues of law and facts are involved in these petitions, with the consent of the parties, the same are being 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31851 disposed of vide common order. 2. The petitioners approached this against the orders dated 30.08.2024, passed by the learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, learned Executing Court has directed the Decree Holder to take steps and file list of property of the petitioners herein for attachment of the same for the execution of the Award. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in light of the fact that objections stood filed to the execution petitions, wherein a specific ground was taken that the execution petitions are time barred, not deciding the objections and passing the impugned order is per se bad and not sustainable in law. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner-Department during the pendency of the execution petition has made part payment to the workmen and further also sought time to make good the Award and therefore, in light of said conduct of the petitioner before the learned Executing Court, these petitions are not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the execution petitions were not time barred and otherwise also, as the Department has acquiescent itself by making part payment during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore, there is no merit in the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General. 3 2025:HHC:31851 5. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be served in case these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the order passed by the learned Executing Court, dated 30.08.2024, in each case be kept in abeyance and firstly, the objections filed by the Department qua the maintainability of the execution petition be decided. Of course, it goes without saying that while deciding the objections, the conduct of the Judgment Debtor before the learned Executing Court shall be taken into consideration. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation on the merit of the case of either of the parties. Depending upon the fate of the objections, learned Executing Court may go ahead with the order which has been put in abeyance by this Court. 6. The petitions stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 1 6 , 2025 (Rishi)