2025:UHC:1051 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.1838 of 2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/petitioners. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent. 2. Respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction against State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Forest and other authorities of State Forest and Revenue department. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 30.01.2020 and defendants to the suit were directed to take decision on the pending representations/applications submitted by Members of the plaintiff’s association for their rehabilitation/resettlement, as early as possible. 3. Plaintiff/decree holder filed an application for executing the decree. The Executing Court rejected the execution application by holding it inexecutable, vide order dated 11.07.2022. Petitioner challenged Executing Court’s order dated 11.07.2022 in a revision petition, which was allowed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 14.02.2023 and the matter was remanded back to the Executing Court with the direction to get the decree executed. Defendants to the suit/ judgment debtors have approached this Court challenging the revisional court’s judgment dated 14.02.2023. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the judgment rendered by learned trial court is absolutely silent regarding the representations/ applications, made by plaintiff, which are yet 2025:UHC:1051 to be decided. He further submits that the date of submission of representations /applications, by the plaintiff, in the concerned department of the State Government is also not indicated in trial court’s judgment, therefore, learned Executing Court was justified in holding the decree passed by trial court is inexecutable. 5. Learned State counsel submits that trial court had directed the authorities to take decision on representations, which were pending consideration and the learned Revisional Court erred in directing the Executing Court to get the decree executed, qua a representation, which was allegedly made by plaintiff/decree holder after passing of judgment by trial Court. 6. He further submits that in para 8 of the order passed by the Executing Court, which was put to challenge by the decree holder, reference is made to a letter dated 10.05.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, which shows that the representations made by plaintiff for handing over forest land was decided by Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Central Forest Division, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 25.02.2022. Thus he submits that it is incorrect to say that any representation, which was made by plaintiff, before decision in the suit is yet to be decided. 7. In para 9 of the order dated 11.07.2022, learned Executing Court has held that trial court’s judgment is silent as regards the representations made by the plaintiff, which have not been decided, therefore, Executing Court held that the decree is inexecutable. 8. Learned Revisional Court has reversed the order passed by Executing Court on the ground that one representation, which was submitted by plaintiff to the State Government on 19.02.2020, has not been considered and decided. 2025:UHC:1051 9. This Court finds force in the contention raised on behalf of petitioners that learned trial Court had directed for decision on pending representations only and representation dated 19.02.2020 was submitted by plaintiff/decree holder, after 30.01.2020, i.e. the date when the suit was decided. 10. I have gone through the judgement rendered by learned trial Court. There is no reference to the representations/applications submitted by plaintiff before State authorities, which were pending consideration. The stand taken by State/petitioners before Executing Court was that there is no representation/application made by plaintiff which is pending before any authority, therefore, it was incumbent upon the decree holder to substantiate allegation of non- compliance of directions, issued by trial court by producing representations with proof of service thereof upon State authorities. Since there was no material available on record to show that any representation made by decree holder before passing of the judgment and decree is yet to be decided, therefore, learned Executing Court was right in holding that the decree is inexecutable. The view to the contrary, taken by learned Revisional Court, therefore, is unsustainable. 11. In such view of the matter, judgment dated 14.02.2023, passed by learned Revisional Court in Civil Revision No. 23 of 2022 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.02.2025 Arpan 2025:UHC:1051