2026:HHC:32830 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.  : 144 of 2024 Decided on    : 05.08.2026 Ajay Kumar …Petitioner Versus Chhering Dolma & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms.   Anjali   Soni   Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner­Ajay   Kumar   has   filed   the   present revision, under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 06.08.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Execution Petition No. 11/2023, titled as “Ajay Kumar Versus Chhering Dolma & Anr.”. 2. Vide order dated 06.08.2024, the learned trial Court has dismissed the execution petition, filed by the petitioner. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:32830 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present  lis,  are,   hereinafter   referred   to,   in   the   same manner,   as   were,   referred   to,   by   the   learned   executing Court. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, are that plaintiff­Ajay Kumar, has filed a suit for   permanent   prohibitory   injunction,   against   the defendants,   which   was   dismissed   by   the   learned   trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2016. 5. The   said   judgment   and   decree   has   been assailed   by   the   plaintiff   before   the   learned   Additional District   Judge,   Kullu,   District   Kullu,   H.P.   (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned First Appellate Court’), by way of Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2016, titled as ‘Ajay Kumar Versus Chhering Dolma & Anr.’.  The said appeal was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court, by granting the following relief: “37. Judged, in the light of my findings on point No. 1 above,   the   appeal   filed   by   the   appellant/plaintiff   is hereby   allowed.     The   impugned   judgment   and   decree dated 09.05.2016 passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 47 of 2012 is hereby set aside.  The defendants are hereby permanently restrained through a decree of prohibitory injunction from changing the nature of the suit land and from raising any sort of construction over the suit   land   till   the   suit   land   is   not   lawfully   partitioned 3 2026:HHC:32830 amongst the co­sharers.  The parties are left to bear their own costs.  Decree be prepared accordingly.  Copy of this judgment   be   sent   to   learned   trial   Court   with   the requisitioned   record. File   after   due   completion   be consigned to record room.” 6. The   judgment   passed   by   the   learned   First Appellate   Court,   admittedly,   has   attained   finality. Thereafter,   the   plaintiff   has   filed   the   execution   petition before the learned trial Court. 7. The said execution petition has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 06.08.2024, holding   that   the   suit   land   has   now   been   partitioned amongst the parties. As such, execution is held to be not maintainable and same has been dismissed by accepting the objections filed by the JDs. 8. Said   order   has   been   assailed   by   way   of   the present   petition. The   plaintiff   has   filed   the   execution before   the   learned   trial   Court,   with   a   prayer   that   the defendants/JDs   may   be   restrained   from   raising construction over the suit land and the construction, so raised, may be ordered to be dismantled and removed, at the   costs   and   expenses   of   JDs   and   the   property   i.e. movable and immovable property, of JDs may be attached and sold, as per law. 4 2026:HHC:32830 9. The   defendants/JDs   contested   the   execution petition,   by   taking   preliminary   objections   that   the execution   petition   is  not  maintainable,  as  the  land  has already been partitioned and they are in possession of their respective share. Reasserting the fact that the suit land has   been   partitioned   by   Assistant   Collector   1st  Grade Manali and mutation No. 363 dated 28.07.2021 has been sanctioned, it has further been pleaded that as per the partition, defendants/JDs are in possession of Khasra No. 498/1/1,   whereas   plaintiff   has   settled   in   Khasra   No. 498/1/2. Both of them have raised boundary wall in their settled possession and as such, prayer has been made to dismiss the execution petition. 10. Heard. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated 12.01.2024, in Revenue Appeal No. 15/2023, passed by Collector, Sub Division Manali, District Kullu, H.P.  The said order is reproduced as under: “Case called Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for appellant present. None for respondents. Respondents   are   proceeded   ex­parte   and   case   is remanded to AC 1st Grade to decide it afresh.” 5 2026:HHC:32830 12. This order has been relied upon by the plaintiff to demonstrate that the partition proceedings have been set aside and matter has been remanded back to AC 1st Grade, to decide it afresh. 13. The   said   order   has   been   passed   by   the Collector, Sub Division, Manali (H.P.) in Revenue Appeal under Section 14 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, by virtue of which, the order of mutation No. 363, dated 28.07.2021, passed by AC 1st Grade has been assailed. 14. The   learned   counsel   for   the   defendants,   has also placed on record the order dated 12.01.2024, on the record. As per the detailed order, passed by the Collector, Sub   Division,   Manali,   District   Kullu,   H.P.,   the   appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed and matter has been remanded back to AC 1st  Grade, to decide the mutation proceedings afresh, after affording due opportunity of being heard. Relevant   paragraph   3   of   the   said   order,   is reproduced, as under: “3. Both the parties were summoned to adduce their arguments.     Sh.   R.K.   Sharma   Ld.   Counsel   for   the appellant present.   None for respondents.   Respondents are   proceeded   ex­parte   due   to   repeated   absence.     Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that A.C. 1st Grade had not   afforded   any   opportunity   to   the   appellant   before attesting   mutation   which   is   against   the   principles   of natural justice.” 6 2026:HHC:32830 15. From the record, nothing has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how the order dated 12.01.2024, passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Manali (H.P.), can be said to be an order by virtue of which partition proceedings have been set aside, resulting into restoration  of the  status of the parties being co­sharer. The main grievance of the plaintiff in the appeal before the Collector, Sub Division, Manali, is that the opportunity of being   heard   has   not   been   given,   while   sanctioning   the mutation.  It has rightly been held by learned trial Court that mutation does not confer any title. 16. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned findings, recorded   by   the   learned   trial   Court.  Consequently,   the present   petition   is   dismissed,   so   also   the   pending application(s), if any. 17. Record be returned back. (Virender Singh) 05th August, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)