Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16904 (HP)

Jai Ram v. Dagi Ram

2026-03-31

Romesh Verma

body2026
JUDGMENT : Romesh Verma, J. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thunag, District Mandi dated 15.07.2023, whereby the objections as filed by the judgment debtors/petitioner to the execution petition filed by the decree holders/respondents have been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the present respondent Dagi Ram has filed a Civil Suit for possession on the basis of title and permanent prohibitory injunction and for the grant of mesne profits in the Court of learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. After the service of the defendant Jai Ram, the case was fixed before the National Lok Adalat Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi. H.P. The case was decided by the National Lok Adalat Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. vide order dated 14.09.2019, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties which reads as under: 14.09.2019 “Present: Plaintiffs present in person with Shri C. L. Sharma, leamed counsel for the plaintiff. Defendants present in person. Matter taken up today before the National Lok Adalat. With the effective assistance of member of Lok Adalat, the parties have reached into final settlement. Terms and conditions of the settlement/compromise is recorded in compromise deed Ext CA. The joint statement of the plaintiffs as well as defendants has been record, wherein they have stated that they have compromised the present matter as per the terms of compromise deed Ext. CA. The joint statement to this effect recorded which shall be treated as part and parcel of the award. Suit finally disposed off being compromised. Award be prepared accordingly. Court fee, if any, be refunded as per rules. CMA(s), if any, stands infructuous. File, be signed to the record room after due completion.” 3. The respective parties also made the statements separately and the same have also been placed on record alongwith the present petition. The National Lok Adalat passed an award, whereby it was ordered that the matter has been compromised as per the terms and conditions of the compromise Ext.CA. The joint statement made in this respect has also been treated as part and parcel of the award. 4. The National Lok Adalat passed an award, whereby it was ordered that the matter has been compromised as per the terms and conditions of the compromise Ext.CA. The joint statement made in this respect has also been treated as part and parcel of the award. 4. As per the Settlement/Compromise as effected between the parties, which has been placed on record, it reveals that the defendant Jai Ram and others had encroached the land bearing khasra No. 985/654 and one structure was raised by them. After the demarcation by the Patwari, the defendants in the said suit agreed to vacate the land and to dismantle the structure over the suit land. 5. It was agreed in the compromise that within a period of 30 days on or before 15.10.2019, the structure shall be removed from the suit land. After removal of the structure, the suit land shall be handed over to the plaintiffs. It was further stipulated in the settlement that in case the defendants on or before 15.10.2019 do not handover the possession, in that event the plaintiffs shall be entitled for decree for possession and grant of mesne profits. The said compromise had been duly signed by plaintiffs Dagi Ram, Gokal Chand, Jai Ram, Jai Singh and Jageshwar. 6. Since the JDs have failed to comply with the Settlement/Compromise effected before the National Lok Adalat, the present respondent Dagi Ram filed an execution petition under Order 21 Rule 11 of C.P.C. It was averred in the application that the Civil Suit which was filed by the plaintiff was compromised between the parties on 14.09.2019 as per the Compromise Deed Ext.CA. It was averred in the application that defendants/JDs have not removed the unlawful structure which was agreed to be removed as per the compromise, raised by them over the suit land till the time of filing of the execution petition. Therefore, it was prayed in the application that the possession of the suit property shall be delivered by affixing a copy of warrant in some conspicuous place on the suit property by proclaiming the beat of drum or other customary mode at some convenient place with the substance of the award and the compromise deed to the decree holders after removal of the structure from the suit land. 7. 7. The JDs have filed the objections to the execution petition by refuting all the contentions as raised by the applicant/ decree holder and it was prayed that the execution petition as filed by the decree holder is without any substance and it requires to be rejected. 8. The learned Civil Judge, Thunag, District Mandi dated 15.07.2023, dismissed the objections filed by the JDs to the execution petition and it was ordered that let warrant of possession be issued directing the Collector to handover the vacant possession of the land bearing khasra No. 985/654 as per the compromise deed, award and demarcation/spot map on the basis of which compromise was effected and award was passed. 9. The JDs feeling dissatisfied by the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court has approached this Court on the ground that the findings as returned by the learned Executing Court are wrong,illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate has submitted that the learned executing Court has not taken into consideration the material and factual aspect of the case and has wrongly dismissed the objections preferred by the JDs. He has further submitted that the dismissal of the objections by the learned trial Court is dehors the record, therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, the objections as filed by the JDs are required to be accepted. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Jia Lal Thakur, learned vice counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned order and has submitted that though the compromise was effected way-back seven years ago before the National Lok Adalat Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P., however, till date, the said decree has not been satisfied on account of dilatory tactics as adopted by the JDs. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 13. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff Dagi Ram has filed a suit for possession, permanent prohibitory injunction and for the grant of mesne profits before the Court of learned Civil Judge Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi. After the service of the defendants, the matter was fixed before the National Lok Adalat and the matter was compromised between the parties. After the service of the defendants, the matter was fixed before the National Lok Adalat and the matter was compromised between the parties. The perusal of the statements as appended with the petition reveals that all the parties have appended the signatures on the statements. Meaning thereby the compromise which has been effected between the parties Ext.CA was duly acknowledged by the present JDs. Based upon the statements of the parties, the suit was disposed of as having been compromised and the award was prepared separately. 14. Ext.CA is the copy of compromise deed which clearly reveals that the defendants have agreed to remove the encroachment from the land bearing Khasra No. 984/654 by removing the structure and to hand over the vacant suit land to the plaintiffs/Decree Holders. It was stipulated in the compromise that after removal of the structure, the vacant land shall be handed over to the Decree Holders within a period of 30 days on or before 15.10.2019. The said compromise deed is the part of the award as passed by the National Lok Adalat. The award as passed by the National Lok Adalat is in the form of a decree passed by the Competent Court of law. The award as passed by the National Lok Adalat has to be executed in its letter and spirit and the JDs cannot be permitted to deviate or obviate from the same in any manner. Though the award was passed in 2019, however, despite passing of more than 7 years, the case is hanging fire and the Decree Holder has been deprived of the fruits of the said compromise decree. 15. In order to adjudicate the controversy, the learned Civil Judge Thunag, District Mandi appointed Sh. Dikshant Thakur, Tehsildar, Thunag, District Mandi to demarcate the suit land in accordance with guide lines of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and to submit a detailed report to the Court. The Local Commissioner Sh. Dikshant Thakur visited the spot on 21.02.2023 alongwith revenue staff and after demarcating the suit land observed that both the parties were apprised about the findings of the report and statements of both the parties were brought on record separately attached in Annexure A-II and A-III. The Local Commissioner Sh. Dikshant Thakur visited the spot on 21.02.2023 alongwith revenue staff and after demarcating the suit land observed that both the parties were apprised about the findings of the report and statements of both the parties were brought on record separately attached in Annexure A-II and A-III. It is observed in the report that the plaintiffs were satisfied by the demarcation while the defendants/respondents did not agree to the demarcation stating that demarcation conducted was different from the demarcation done earlier when the tatima on khasra No. 985/654/1 was prepared. As per the findings of the Local Commissioner, it was confirmed that kutcha structure / khokha was still in existence over Khasra No. 985/654/1. As per the report, kutcha structure/khokha is in possession with the defendants/petitioners and it was held that Khasra No. 985/654/1 was sub part of Khasra No. 985/654 jointly owned by the plaintiff. 16. It was observed by the Local Commissioner that as per findings of the demarcating Officer, whole of Khasra No. 985/654 was still in possession of the respondents/JDs. The report is very specific, clear and unambiguous. The J.Ds/petitioners have failed to comply with the compromise/settlement deed, which was effected between the parties and based upon which the award was passed by the National Lok Adalat Chachiot at Ghohar, District Mandi. The compromise decree having attained finality has to be executed as per terms and conditions of the compromise. The compromise has been duly signed by the respective parties and as per report of the Local Commissioner, the suit land is still in the possession of the present petitioners/JDs. Therefore, the contentions and the averments as made by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not hold good. Now by raising various different grounds the JDs intend to bye-pass the compromise decree which has been passed by the National Lok Adalat in their presence. It seems that the endeavour of the JDs is to prolong the matter by taking multifarious objections qua the maintainability of the execution petition . 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India in case titled as Garment Craft versus Prakash Chand Goel 2022 (4) S.C.C 181 has held as under: “15. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India in case titled as Garment Craft versus Prakash Chand Goel 2022 (4) S.C.C 181 has held as under: “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 18. The learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the objections as filed by the JDs which are without any merit and and any substance. The J.Ds cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the compromise which has been effected between the parties with their open eyes before the National Lok Adalat. The compromise decree which has been passed by the National Lok Adalat has to be taken to its logical end and the Jds/petitioners cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the same. The learned trial Court has rightly passed impugned order by rejecting the objections as preferred by the JDs/petitioners, therefore, this Court does not see any infirmity or illegality in the order. 19. In view of above, present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.