1 2026:HHC:42166 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CR No. 89 of 2025 Reserved on : 1.9.2026 Decided on: 30.9.2026 Uploaded on:30.9.2026 Shanti Devi & others … Petitioners Versus Om Prakash & others …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Name of respondent No. 12 stands deleted. None for respondents No. 13 and 14. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the C.P.C., against the order dated 22.1.2025, passed in Execution Petition No. 158 of 2013, titled as, ‘Rattan Chand versus Amir Chand and others’ by the Court of Learned Sub Judge, 2 2026:HHC:42166 Chamba, hereinafter referred to as the "Executing Court". 2. 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 filing of the present petition, before this Court, may be summed up, as under: Plaintiffs Rattan Chand and others have filed Civil Suit No. 31/1982, against respondents Amin Chand and others, for possession, by way of redemption of the suit property, bearing khata khatauni No. 62/96 to 98, Khata Khatauni No.63/99, measuring 13 bighas, situated in village Bhanota, and Khata Khatauni No. 38/125 to 127, measuring 9 bighas 18 biswas, situated in village Udeypur. The said suit was decreed by the court of the then Sub Judge, First Class, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., vide judgment and decree dated 5.1.1983, by granting relief to the plaintiffs, by passing a decree for redemption of mortgage, without payment of 3 2026:HHC:42166 consideration amount, against respondents No. 1 to 20, whereas, the suit for possession was dismissed. 3.1 The said judgment and decree was assailed by the plaintiffs, before the Court of Learned District Judge, Kangra Division at Chamba on circuit. The learned District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1988, decided the appeal, in view of the compromise, having been effected between the parties, by passing a decree for redemption. 3.2 Thereafter, the decree holders filed application under Order 21 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., before the Executing Court, for the possession of the land measuring 4 bighas 14 biswas, comprising Khasra Nos. 232, 247, and 268, situated in village Udeypur. 4. When, the notice of the application was put to the judgment debtors, objections under Section 47 of the C.P.C., were filed on behalf of JDs Tilak Raj, Dev Raj, Des Raj, and Sarwan. 5. As per the objections, the Execution petition is not maintainable, and the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to deliver the physical possession of the suit 4 2026:HHC:42166 land, as the same is with the objectors, since 1958, and the objectors, as well as, their predecessors-in-interest were not made parties. The decree is stated to be unexecutable. 6. These objections were controverted by the decree-holders, by filing a reply. As per the order dated 22.1.2025, the learned Executing Court has dismissed the execution petition, on the ground that the learned District Judge, Kangra, Camp at Chamba, vide judgment and decree dated 22.3.1988, has passed the decree for possession of the suit land, against one of the respondents, namely Nand Lal. It has been held by the learned Execution Court that the Execution was not filed against Nand Lal, but his legal heirs. However, the execution petition is silent about the fact as to when respondent No. 41 Nand Lal, has expired. 7. The learned Executing Court has also dismissed the Execution Petition, on the ground that there is no averment, in the Execution Petition that after the death of Nand Lal, possession of the land was taken by his legal heirs, as such, according to the learned Executing 5 2026:HHC:42166 Court, it cannot be presumed that after the death of Nand Lal, the subject matter of the execution petition, was in possession of his legal heirs. On this technical ground, the application for execution, has been dismissed. 8. As per the zimni orders, Nand Lal was party defendant No. 41, in the suit for possession, by way of redemption, before the learned trial Court, and he was also impleaded, as party in the appeal. 9. Once, a decree has been passed, which has attained finality, the decree holder has every right to enjoy the usufruct of the same, and the execution of the same cannot be denied by taking a hyper-technical approach, as taken by the learned Executing Court, in the present case. 10. By way of the order dated 22.1.2025, the learned Executing Court, instead of executing the decree, has adopted a novel idea to dismiss the execution petition on the ground that the date of death of Nand Lal JD No. 41, has not been mentioned. 6 2026:HHC:42166 11. In addition to this, it has also been presumed that after the death of Nand Lal, possession of the subject matter of the lis, was not with his legal heirs. 12. The Executing Court is duty-bound to execute the decree and only those objections, which fall within the purview of section 47 of the CPC, i.e. execution, discharge and satisfaction can only be entertained. 13. In such situation, the order passed by the learned Executing Court does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court, and the same is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the learned Executing Court to decide the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity to the parties to the lis, to prove the date of death of Shri Nand Lal, and after recording the said finding, decree is liable to be executed against his LRs. 14. With these observations, the present petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back, with a request to the learned Executing Court to decide the matter, within a period of six months, from the date of receipt of the record. 7 2026:HHC:42166 15. The parties to the lis, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court, on 12.10.2026. 16. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 17. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 30.9.2026 Judge Kalpana