1  2026:HHC:36653 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 462 of 202 6 Decided on : 25.08 .2026 Amar Nath and others …Petitioners Versus Kauran Devi and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : None. Virender Singh, Judge. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 27th June, 2026, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executing Court’), in Case No. 9/2016, titled as Kauran Devi and another versus Amar Nath and others, whereby the learned Executing Court has 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2  2026:HHC:36653 dismissed the objections, filed by the petitioners, in the above-noted Execution Petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Executing Court. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the documents, annexed with the petition, may be summed up, as under: 4. The Decree Holders have filed the Execution Petition, under Order 21 Rules 10 and 35 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) to execute the decree, dated 6th June, 1984, passed in Suit No. 63/1 of 1979, titled as Kauran Devi etc. versus Kanshi Ram etc. and to deliver the possession of the land, measuring 5-18 bighas, comprised in khasra No. 8, khewat No. 87, khatauni No. 102, situated in Village Jol Palakin, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., against the Judgment Debtors- Amar Nath and others. 3  2026:HHC:36653 5. Vide judgment and decree, dated 6th June, 1984, the following relief has been granted by the learned trial Court: “In view of my findings, on issues No. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8, the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that the order of A.C. 1st Grade Ghumarwin, dated 14.2.78 redeeming the suit land, as mentioned in the body of the plaint, is void, illegal and not binding upon them alongwith the relief for possession, in the alternative, succeeds and is hereby decreed. However, the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the contesting defendants from interfering into the suit land, fails and is hereby dismissed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared, accordingly. The file be consigned to the record room after completion.” 6. In the Execution Petition, the Judgment Debtors have filed the objections, under Section 47 of the CPC, on the ground, that the Execution Petition is barred by limitation and the decree, passed in favour of the Decree Holder, which is being sought to be executed, has become inexecutable, due to change of law and circumstances. It has also been contended that the Judgment Debtors are owners of land and the Decree Holders are only mortgagee and the relationship as mortgagor and mortgagee has come to an end on payment of mortgage amount, which stands 4  2026:HHC:36653 deposited before Assistant Collector First Grade, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., on 21st February, 1975. Therefore, according to the Judgment Debtors, decree for possession cannot be executed against true owners, who are in peaceful possession of the suit land, after redemption, on the basis of their title. 7. The objections have also been filed, on the ground, that the Decree Holders have to show, at three relevant times, that the execution of the decree, passed in their favour, is legal and executable : (i) at the time of filing the suit; (ii) at the time of passing the decree; and (iii) at the time of execution of decree. 8. It is the further case of the Judgment Debtors that as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the mortgagee have no right to retain possession, when the amount of mortgage is either paid or tendered, and the deposit of amount of mortgage in the Court amounts to payment of mortgage amount. 9. It is their further case that the Judgment Debtors are mortgagor of the suit land; they applied for redemption of mortgage land before Assistant Collector 5  2026:HHC:36653 First Grade, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, under the Himachal Pradesh Redemption of Mortgage Act, 1971 and after admission of the application, the Court ordered to deposit the mortgage money of 600/- in the Bank. The ₹ mortgagors deposited the amount on 21st May, 1975 and thereafter, proceedings for redemption started and after trial of the case, the land was ordered to be redeemed, vide order, dated 14th February, 1978 and in consequence thereof, the possession of the land was also delivered to the mortgagors on the spot, therefore, the land stands redeemed, as per law. 10. According to the Judgment Debtors, thereafter, the mortgagee filed a civil suit challenging therein the order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Ghumarwin, on some technical grounds. The trial Court passed a decree on 6th June, 1984, however, the said judgment was set aside by the Court of learned District Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 22nd December, 1994, but, in Regular Second Appeal, the judgment passed by the learned District Judge has been set aside. 6  2026:HHC:36653 11. On the basis of the above facts, the Judgment Debtors have prayed for dismissal of the Execution Petition. 12. The learned Executing Court, vide order, dated 27th June, 2026, has dismissed the objections, filed by the Judgment Debtors. 13. The said order has been assailed before this Court, by way of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Heard. 15. Whatsoever has been pleaded by the Judgment Debtors-petitioners, in the objections, is based upon the pre-decretal events, which have already been taken into consideration by the Court. As per the Judgment Debtors, the land was allegedly redeemed by them on 21st May, 1975, when, they had deposited a sum of 600/- in the ₹ bank, in pursuance of the directions of the Assistant Collector First Grade, Ghumarwin. The Civil Suit has been instituted on 14th February, 1978 and the same was decreed on 6th June, 1984. Even, the redemption order has been passed prior to the filing of the suit. The order 7  2026:HHC:36653 has been assailed by way of the Civil Suit, upon which, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the Decree Holder by granting the relief, which has been reproduced herienabove. 16. The learned trial Court, after considering all those objections, as raised by the Judgment Debtors/defendants, in their written statement, has decreed the suit, which, although, was reversed by the learned District Judge, but, the judgment of the learned District Judge, as noted hereinabove, has been restored by this Court, in RSA No. 75 of 1995, vide judgment, dated 2nd January, 2007. 17. In such situation, tho objections, which although, have been filed, under Section 47 of the CPC, do not fall within the purview of ‘execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree’. 18. Considering the above facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 19. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the 8  2026:HHC:36653 merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present petition. 20. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge August 25, 2026 ( rajni )