1( 2026:HHC:21067 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CR No. 58 of 2026 Date of Decision : 29.05.2026 Indra Devi ...Petitioner Versus Anant Ram & others. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ajeet Pal Singh, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the impugned order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, dated 04.05.2026, whereby the objections as filed by the Judgment debtor/ petitioner have been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintif filed a suit for declaration against Sauji and Indra Devi in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. on 09.03.1998/28-3-1993.The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 04.08.1998 partly decreed the suit as filed by the respondents/plaintifs in the following manner: 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2( 2026:HHC:21067 ) “15. For the reasons detailed above while discussing the above issues for determination, the suit of the plaintifs is partly accepted and the same is decreed to the efect that plaintifs are owner in possession of 1/2 share of Moti Ram deceased on the basis of the will Ex. P4 in house No.1. of four-storeyed slate-roof standing over khasra no.4239 as shown in Ex. P1 situated in Phati, Jana Kothi, Naggar Tehsil and Distt. Kullu and right of defendant No.1 in the 1/2 share left by deceased Moti Ram in the suit land is that of a limited owner till her death or re-marriage whichever is earlier. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room” 3. In order to execute the said decree, respondents/plaintifs filed an execution petition No. 2-x/2020 under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1 C.P.C before the learned Executing Court. The copy of the same has been appended with the present petition as Annexure P-2. To the said execution, the present petitioners filed objection/reply on 29.08.2019, wherein all the averments as made in the execution petition were denied and refuted. 4. The learned Executing Court vide its order dated 04.05.2026 dismissed the objections as filed by the J.Ds/ 3( 2026:HHC:21067 ) petitioners and issued the warrant of possession in favour of the respondents and against the present petitioners. 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objections which were preferred by the JDs/petitioners have not been considered by the learned Executing Court, therefore, the impugned order as passed by the learned Executing Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondents, has defended the impugned order and submits that the order does not require any interference by this Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file carefully. 8. The perusal of the objections/reply filed by the present petitioners reveals that a detailed and exhaustive reply, by raising various objections, was filed before the learned Executing Court. However, the impugned order shows that the said objections have not been dealt or discussed by the learned Executing Court. On this sole ground the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case after setting aside the impugned order the case is remitted to the executing Court to decide the objection afresh after afording opportunity to both 4( 2026:HHC:21067 ) the parties. Therefore, without touching anything on the merits of the case, the impugned order is being quashed and set-aside solely on the ground that the objections as filed by the petitioners have not been taken into consideration and dealt with by the learned Executing Court. 9. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel for the respondents that the decree which was passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Manali, on 4.8.1998 stood affirmed by this Court on 16.03.2011 in RSA No. 398/99 titled as Anant Ram vs. Indra Devi. After affirmation of said decree, the decree holders/respondents filed the suit for possession against the present petitioner. The said suit No. 12/14 came to be withdrawn by the present respondents vide order dated 14.11.2018 as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, H.P. He submits that he may be permitted to file appropriate application for revival of the said suit. 10. For the filing of the said application, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection, but he would contend that the said application would be decided by the very same Court strictly in accordance with law on its own merit. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, the instant petition is allowed and consequently, the impugned order, as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kullu,HP is quashed and set-aside with direction to the executing Court to decide the objections as 5( 2026:HHC:21067 ) filed by the present petitioner afresh by afording an opportunity to both the parties in support of their respective contentions and to take the execution petition to its logical end. 12. In case, any application is filed by the respondents/decree holders for the revival of Civil Suit No. 12/2014, in that event, the learned trial Court may proceed in accordance with law and decide the said application as per its own merit after taking the objections /reply from the Judgment debtor/petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 29.05.2026 (veena)