2026:HHC:6171 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.R. No. 195 of 2025 Decided on: 06.03.2026 ______________________________________________________________ Dev Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Zehar Singh ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Naveen Kumar Negi, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court assailing order dated 18.10.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo in Execution Petition No. 1 of 2019, titled as Zehar Singh vs. Dev Singh, whereby the Executing Court had issued warrant of sale against the property of the petitioner for execution of the entire decretal amount i.e. Rs.1,70,000/- plus interest @ 9% thereon from 04.03.2010 till realization towards the decree holder plus cost of the suit. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. The amount claimed in the Execution Petition was as under: i) Principle amount Rs. = 1,70,000/- ii) Interest from 4.3.2010 to 04.12.2018 Rs. = 1,32,560/- iii) Cost Rs. 4,336/- Total: Rs. 3,06,896/- Plus Rs.42/- per day from 5.12.2018 till realization of the entire amount. 3. It is admitted fact that in the main Civil Suit No.8/1 of 2010, titled as Zehar Singh Vs. M/s S.O.N.C.A. Construction & others, petitioner was defendant No.3 and in the said suit ex parte decree for recovery of Rs.1,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of suit till realization of the entire amount has been passed, but with categorical direction that defendant No.3 i.e. present petitioner shall be liable to pay Rs.64,400/- out of total amount of Rs.1,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. 4. It is admitted fact that after passing of decree plaintiff had filed Execution Petition against all three defendants on 4.4.2011, however, the said Execution Petition was withdrawn as in the document obtained by the petitioner - 3 - it has been ordered that petition was withdrawn as unsatisfied due to death of Judgment Debtors No.1 and 2. 5. Thereafter, Decree Holder/respondent has filed Execution Petition on 4.12.2018, wherein Judgment Debtor/ petitioner has not been served and without effecting service upon the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, warrant of attachment and sale of property of petitioner/Judgment Debtor had been issued and when auction notice dated 17.11.2024 was served upon the petitioner on 2.12.2025, the petitioner came to know about it and thereafter petitioner collected the documents and preferred present petition. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, respondent preferred Execution Petition against the petitioner, who was defendant No.3 in Civil Suit and as evident from the judgment and decree, defendant No.3 i.e. petitioner is liable to pay only Rs.64,400/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in terms of judgment and decree, whereas Execution Petition has been filed to recover the entire amount from defendant No.3. As per decree, defendants No. 1 and 2 were jointly and severally held liable for payment of Rs.1,70,000/-, - 4 - whereas, against present petitioner, decree for recovery of Rs.64,400/- was passed. 7. The petitioner has approached this Court with the submission that he was ready to pay and deposit the entire decretal amount, which is recoverable from him i.e. Rs.64,400/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of suit till realization of the entire amount. 8. In view of the undertaking on 19.12.2025, the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire decretal amount payable by him i.e. Rs.64,400/- alongwith up to date interest in the Executing Court well before next date of hearing i.e. 02.01.2026 and finding a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner, order dated 18.10.2025 passed in Execution Petition N o. 1 of 2019, pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, was stayed. 9. During the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.1,55,700/- in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo for satisfying the execution of decree against him with respect to the liability fastened upon him vide decree in reference. - 5 - 10. Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate, appearing under instructions of original counsel Mr. Naveen Kumar Negi, Advocate, has endorsed the deposit of amount satisfying the entire liability of the petitioner in the decree dated 08.03.2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 8-1 of 2010, titled Zehar Singh vs. M/s S.O.N.C.A. Construction and others. He has submitted that in view of the deposit of aforesaid amount, the decree against petitioner stands satisfied completely and now nothing is due to be paid by the petitioner/J.D. to the respondent/D.H. He has further submitted that the Executing Court be directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. 11. In view of above, as the decree stands satisfied, which has also been endorsed by the respondent/Decree Holder, through his counsel, the impugned order is set-aside and the Executing Court is directed to close the execution proceedings against the petitioner, being satisfied, and to release the decretal amount deposited by the petitioner to the bank account of the respondent/Decree Holder on furnishing the details thereof through his counsel or in person. - 6 - 12. Revision Petition is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 6th March, 2026 (GR)