IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Execution Petition No.165 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ The Local Residents of Sanjauli …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record copy of order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Court in CMP No.5439 of 2025 in CWP No.11700 of 2024, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 states that since time to comply with order dated 21.10.2024 passed in CWP No.11700 of 2024 stands extended by this Court as such, present petition is not maintainable. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the instant petition and further canvassed by learned 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 counsel for the petitioner, is that though in terms of order dated 21.10.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.11700 of 2024, respondent No.2-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla was directed to decide the pending complaint bearing case No.824/AP/2010, titled as MC Shimla vs. Salim Tailors and others within a period of eight weeks, but till date needful has been not done. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material adduced on record, this Court finds that before execution petition at hand could be listed before this Court, respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla by way of CMP No.5439 of 2025 filed in CWP No.11700 of 2024, prayed for extension of time to comply with the order dated 21.10.2024 and this Court vide order dated 28.03.2025 extended the time by six weeks. Since time to comply with the judgment/order, sought to be executed, is yet to expire, present petition being pre-mature is not maintainable. 4. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage, if required and desired. Ordered accordingly. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 01,2025 (shankar)