2026:HHC:43064 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.  : 357 of 2022 Decided on    : 05.10.2026 Ram Singh …Petitioner Versus Jeet Singh & Anr. …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.   R.K.   Bawa,   Senior Advocate,   with   Mr.   Abhinav Thakur, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner­Ram   Singh   is   before   this   Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 14.06.2022, passed by the Court of learned Civil   Judge,   Kasauli,   District   Solan,   H.P.   (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Executing Court’), in Execution Petition No. 8/10 of 2016, which has been filed under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis, are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:43064 which,   they   were   referred   to,   by   the   learned   Executing Court. 3. The admitted facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 3.1 JD Ram Singh has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, qua the subject matter of the lis, which   is   Khasra   No.   16,   measuring   00­04­20   hectares, situated   at   Mauja/Mohal   Katal,   Tehsil   Kasauli,   District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). In the said suit, the Decree Holder had also filed the counter­ claim. 3.2 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after giving the opportunity to lead evidence, the Court of   learned   Civil   Judge,   Kasauli,   vide   judgment   dated 21.09.2015, has granted the following relief, to the parties to the lis:­ “25. Judged in the light of my findings on issues No. 1 to 10 above, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and counter claim of the defendants is partly decreed with costs. The plaintiff is held entitled for a decree for permanent   prohibitory   injunction   restraining   the defendants   from   interfering   in   the   suit   land   bearing Khasra No. 16, ousting the plaintiff from the suit land, causing any type of damage, encroaching upon the suit land,   by   way   of   digging   and   by   raising   any   type   of construction on the suit land till it is partitioned by metes 3 2026:HHC:43064 and bounds, either themselves or through their agents, servants, assigns, family members, labourers, contractors etc. The   counter   claimants/defendants   are   also   held entitled for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining   the   plaintiff   from   raising   any   type   of construction in Khasra No. 16 situated in Mauza Katal, Tehsil   Kasauli,   District   Solan,   H.P.   till   it   is   legally partitioned. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The file,   after   its   due   completion   be   consigned   to   record Room.” 4. Admittedly, the said judgment and decree, has not been assailed by any of the parties and has attained finality. Thereafter, the Decree Holder Jeet Singh and Hari Singh, had filed the execution under Order 21 Rule 32, read with Section 151 CPC, for enforcement of judgment and decree passed in counter claim No. 79/1 of 2013, by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kasauli. 5. In   the   said   execution,   the   learned   Executing Court, has framed the following points for determination on 17.06.2017:­ 1. Whether   respondent/J.D.   has   disobeyed   the   judgment and decree dated 21.09.2015, passed by this Court in counter claim No. 79/1 of 2013, titled as Jeet Singh & Anr. Vs. Ram Singh, by raising construction over the suit land, as alleged? OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable in its present form, as alleged? OPR 3. Whether the applicants have not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the Court, as alleged? OPR 4. Relief. 4 2026:HHC:43064 6. After giving the opportunity  to lead evidence, the said execution petition, has been decided by dismissing the objections raised by the JD and warrant of attachment, was ordered to be issued against the JD. 7. The said order has been assailed, by way of the present petition. 8. Once, the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., has attained finality, then, the only option, left with the Court is to punish the violator. 9. During   the   pendency   of   the   lis,   before   this Court,   Tehsildar   Kasauli   was   appointed   as   Local Commissioner,   who   visited   the   spot   and   submitted   the report. 10. Considering the allegations, as levelled in the application   under   Order   21   Rule   32   CPC,   according   to which, the JD has raised the construction over the subject matter of the lis, in utter violation of the decree, passed in favour of Decree Holder, in counter claim No. 79/1 of 2013, the evidence with regard to the construction, which has been allegedly raised, over the subject matter of the lis, could have been there, to demonstrate the construction, if 5 2026:HHC:43064 any, raised by the JD, after passing of the decree, which, had attained finality, in the present case. 11. Consequently, not much reliance can be placed on the report of Tehsildar, as to take action against the J.D., for violation of the judgment and decree, under Order 21   Rule   32   CPC,   evidence   of   some   expert   is   required. Consequently, the order, which has been impugned, before this Court, is ordered to be set aside and the matter is remanded   back   to   learned   Executing   Court,   with   a direction to appoint some expert, who will visit the spot and to give positive findings with regard to the age of the construction, if any, raised over the subject matter of the lis. 12. With   these   observations,   the   petition   is disposed of.  Matter is remanded back to learned Executing Court, with the above observations.   Considering the fact that the decree was passed, way back in the year 2015, it is expected from the learned Executing Court, to decide the Execution  afresh,   within   a   period  of  four   months,   from today. 6 2026:HHC:43064 13. Parties   through   their   counsel   are   directed   to appear before the learned Executing Court on 26.10.2026, at 10:00 am. 14. Record be sent back immediately. (Virender Singh) Judge 05th October, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)