1 ( 2026:HHC:21062 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.697 of 2025 Date of Decision : 27.05.2026 Rakesh Kumar Kaushal & others. ...Petitioners Versus B.D. Goma & anr. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. or the respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the order, dated 24.06.2025 as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 6, Shimla, H.P., whereby, the learned trial Court by exercising the inherent powers under Section 152 has amended the decree which was originally passed by the learned Civil Jude, Court No.4, Shimla, H.P., dated 30.11.2021. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent B.D. Goma, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction against one Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Nitika,Gitika and Gunjan and M.C. Shimla. The 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:21062 ) learned trial Court framed the issues in the matter on 16.08.2018 in the following manner : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of mandatory prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is neither competent nor maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action in filing the present suit, as alleged?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged?...OPD. 6. Whether the suit has not been properly verified in accordance with law, as alleged?...OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, as alleged?OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-issuance of mandatory notice under section 392 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, as alleged? OPD. 9. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee to be rejected as per as per fee provision and liable of under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, as alleged?OPD. 10. Relief 3. The parties were directed to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and vide judgment and decree 3 ( 2026:HHC:21062 ) dated, 30.11.2021 the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent,whereby defendants No. 1 to 4 were restrained from pilling debris at the back side of the suit premises and also raising further construction of the shed without seeking approval from Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Further, defendants No. 1 to 4 were also directed to remove the debris/soil collected around the back side of the suit premises and also to remove the unauthorized structure raised by them. 4. The decree holder/respondent filed the execution petition bearing No. 143/10 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge, Court No.4, Shimla, H.P. on 31.08.2022. The said execution was contested by filing objection under Section 47 of C.P.C by the present petitioners. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 24.06.2025 after exercising the power under Section 152 C.P.C amended the decree by incorporating the khasra numbers owned by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the judgment Debtors had approached this court assailing the said order by way of instant petition with the following relief: “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the as passed by the learned 4 ( 2026:HHC:21062 ) Civil Judge, Court No. 6, Shimla, in Civil Execution No.67/2022 whereby, decree has been amended by exercising the under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be quashed and set-aside in the interest of justice and fair play.” 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous in the eyes of law. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order on the ground that, though admittedly the judgment and decree was passed in their favour, since the identification of the suit land had been skipped from the judgment/decree of the learned trial Court, therefore, in order to implement the said decree on the spot in its letter and spirit the learned trial Court was well within its her right to amend the same by providing the description and identification of the suit land, so that the decree can be executed effectively and properly. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone the case file. 9. Admittedly, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction before the learned trial Court. The said suit was 5 ( 2026:HHC:21062 ) partly decreed on 30.11.2021. A perusal of the judgment as well as decree reveals that the learned Court below could not incorporate the proper identification and specification of the suit land in the same. Faced with such a situation in the execution petition filed by the decree-holders, the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its powers under Section 152 CPC. 10. It is not the case of the petitioners/JDs that no decree exists in favour of the present respondents. Admittedly, the said decree has attained finality, as the petitioners/JDs did not assail the judgment and decree in an appeal. Therefore, in order to implement the decree, the learned trial Court incorporated the Khasra numbers of the parties so that the suit land could be properly identified and the execution proceedings could be taken to it logical end and the same can be implemented on the spot. 11. This Court is in agreement with the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents that the provisions of law are meant to advance justice and not to curtail the same. Had the said exercise not been undertaken by the learned trial Court, then the very purpose of filing the suit and passing the judgment and decree would have defeated. The Court below has exercised the jurisdiction well within its right and there is no jurisdictional error in the same. 6 ( 2026:HHC:21062 ) 12. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 27.05.2026 (veena)