IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 373 of 2023 Decided on 22nd July 2025 Krishan Chand …Petitioner Versus Kesar Singh (deceased) through his LRs Sunil Kumar and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition may very kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 30.12.2022 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Execution Petitin No.13/13 in Civil Suit No.161/2006, titled as Krishan Chand versus Kesar Singh (Annexure P-5), may kindly be quashed and the learned Trial Court may kindly be directed to execute the decree dated 12.03.2013 and hand over the possession of 1x5 meters land comprised in Khewat No.3min, Khataui No.15, Khasra No.1488/1448, land measuring 0-00-28 hectares, situated in village Tour-Jajar, Illaqua Kamlah, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. to the petitioner in terms of the decree, in the interest of law and justice.” 2 2. Though, this Court had ordered the issuance of notice to the respondents, but steps have not been taken by the petitioner in time to serve the respondents. 3. Be that as it may, the Court requested learned counsel for the petitioner to assist the Court and make submissions on the merit of the case to see as to whether there indeed was any merit in the petition, so as to issue fresh notice to the respondents or not. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.12.2022, in terms whereof, the prayer made by the petitioner for issuance of warrant of possession to hand over the possession of the suit land to Decree Holder in consonance with the decree passed in his favour has been rejected by the learned Court below. 5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Court dated 30.12.2022, demonstrates that the prayer for issuance of warrant of possession was declined by the learned Court on the ground that a Revenue Officer visited the spot, on the direction of the Court, in the presence of the petitioner and reported back to the Court that the possession of the property in terms of the 3 decree stood handed over to the Decree Holder and there was no stair case on the spot, as it was already removed from the spot and the possession of the suit land was already delivered to the Decree Holder. 6. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Executing Court is reproduced hereinbelow:- “In the case in hand report of Naib Tehsildar dated 22.12.2022 has been seen and perused. Perusal of report clearly reflects that when the revenue officials visited the spot no stair case was found on the spot as it was already removed from the spot and the possession of the suit land has already been provided to DH and it has also been mentioned that DH on the spot in presence of revenue officials has denied to record his statement and has left the spot. Perusal of the report of warrant of possession alongwith copy of rapat roznamcha and statement of the witnesses of the spot reflects that no stair case was found over the suit land as it has been removed earlier when the revenue official visited the spot and possession of suit land is with the decree holder. Further, photographs of the spot reflects that there is no stair case on the spot. Moreover DH who appeared in person in the Court insisted in the Court to send JCB on the spot to demolish the construction raised by the Judgment Debtor. It appears that objections are raised by Decree Holder just for the just for the sake of objections. There is nothing on record to cast doubt upon the report of Naib Tehsildar and Revenue Officials who visited the spot after order of Court. As such at this stage Court finds no substance in the objections and plea raised by the Decree Holder and same are liable to be rejected and present execution is dismissing being fully satisfied. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 4 7. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner made an endeavor to demonstrate before the Court that the findings returned by the learned Executing Court were perverse and there still was a stair case existing at the spot, however, this contention was not substantiated by any material to prove the same. 8. On the other hand, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Court below demonstrates that Naib Tehsildar visited the spot on 22.12.2022 and filed the spot visit report, in terms whereof, no stair case was found on the spot. It is further evident from the order passed by learned Court below that the Decree Holder was present at the spot at the time of inspection, but, he refused to record is statement and left the spot. 9. Learned Court has also referred in its order that photograph of the spot reflect that there is no stair case on the spot. 10. These findings returned by the learned Court could not be demonstrated to be perverse by placing on record anything to controvert the contents of the order. 5 11. It is further evident from the order passed by the learned Court below that the Decree Holder, who appeared in the said Court in person insisted in the Court to send a JCB on the spot to demolish the construction raised by the Judgment Debtor and learned Court further went on to observe that it appeared that the objections were raised by Decree Holder just for the sake of raising objections and in fact there was no substance in the objections and the plea of the Decree Holder. 12. Again, at the cost of repetition, this Court observes that as the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate by placing any cogent material on record that the findings returned by the learned Court below are perverse and contrary to record, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the said findings, which have been returned by the learned Court and accordingly, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22, 2025 (Vinod)