2026:HHC:13510 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CR No.145 of 2024 Decided on: 23.04.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Roop Lal ...Petitioner Versus Mohan & others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents: Respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 ex- parte. Name of respondent No.6 stands deleted. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short “trial Court”), whereby the execution petition preferred by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), registered as Execution Petition No. 28/18/17, titled, Roop Lal vs. Mohan and others, has been dismissed. 2. The facts as emerge from pleadings are that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:13510 petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter referred as “the petitioner”) filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against respondent No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.2 to 7/defendants (hereinafter referred as “the respondents”). The said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 46 of 2012, titled, Roop Lal vs. Mohan and another. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.1, Mandi, H.P., decreed the aforementioned Civil Suit and the respondents were restrained from changing the nature by way of raising construction over the suit land comprised in Khewat No.282, Khatauni No.353, Khasra No.1097, 1168, Kita-2, measuring 15-14-03 bighas situated in Muhal Mandal, Hadbast No. 202, Teshil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., till the suit land is finally partitioned. 3. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC against the respondents, alleging therein that the respondents despite the decree passed by the learned trial Court, had started raising construction over the valuable portion of suit land in sheer violation of the decree passed by the Court. It was further averred that the respondents had filed an application for partition of land before the Assistant Collector First Grade, 3 2026:HHC:13510 Balh, District Mandi, H.P., and had procured a partition order in their favour on 23.12.2016. However, no share to the petitioner and his other co-sharers have been allotted in the said partition order and thus, they preferred an appeal against the said order before the Sub Divisional Collector, Balh, who, vide order dated 31.01.2017, stayed the operation of the partition order dated 23.12.2016. It was alleged that since the respondents had disobeyed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, intentionally and willfully, they are liable for contempt of Court. Further the respondents are liable to be detained in the civil prison and their property be also liable to be attached till the decree is obeyed and the suit land is restored to its original position. 4. The respondents filed objections to the execution petition, taking preliminary objections that the execution petition was not maintainable; the petitioner has no right, title and interest to file the petition; the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts; no enforceable cause of action against the respondents and the petition has been filed on false, frivolous and vexatious grounds. On merits, it was pleaded 4 2026:HHC:13510 that respondent No.1 and his predecessors had filed partition application, and the petitioner and other co- sharers were duly served. Thereafter, after following due process, the mode of partition was issued and the shares of all the co-sharers were separated on the spot, according to their possession. It was only after the partition order, the respondents raised construction of the house, on their land, which was allotted to them in the partition proceedings. The appeal has been preferred against the partition order just to harass them. 5. After filing reply, the respondents were proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner led evidence by examining witnesses to prove that the respondents have violated the decree passed by the learned trial Court. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the application for disobedience of the decree holding that the remedy under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC, which has been resorted to is semi-criminal in nature and it is always incumbent upon the decree holder to lead proof to prove the allegations and violation of the decree, as required to be led in the criminal case. In the present case, the execution petition was filed in 5 2026:HHC:13510 the year 2017, after a gap of about four years and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have come out with a clear cut case and evidence that how much portion of the construction, if any, was completed prior to passing of the decree and how much construction has been raised by the respondents after passing the decree. It was observed that there is no clear cut evidence to suggest that over which portion of the suit land and to what extent, the alleged construction was done by the respondents/JD and as such dismissed the application holding that the respondents have not willfully and intentionally disobeyed the decree passed by the learned trial Court. 7. I have heard Mr. H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that after passing the decree by the learned trial Court, respondent No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of defendant No.2 in the civil suit had filed the application for partition of the suit land and the Assistant Collector First Grade, Balh, had partitioned the land on 23.12.2016. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Sub Divisional Collector, Balh, on the ground that no share had been given to him and his other 6 2026:HHC:13510 co-sharers in the said partition. No doubt the order of partition, passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Balh, dated 23.12.2016, was stayed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Balh, but fact of the matter is that the partition has taken place after passing the decree. The petitioner himself has made such averment in the application filed under Order XXI Rule 32 of CPC and thus, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated the decree. No doubt, the respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte after filing reply, but the fact of the matter is evident from a perusal of the record that the partition had taken place, which fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. If the partition had taken place and if there is any illegality having been committed by the Authority, it cannot be said that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court has been violated. The learned trial Court at the time of passing the decree on 11.09.2013 had only restrained the respondents to change the nature by raising the construction, till suit land is finally partitioned. Once the land has been partitioned, it cannot be said that the decree has been violated by the respondents. The learned trial Court has recorded that the petitioner has not proved that on which 7 2026:HHC:13510 part of the suit land, construction has been made and further whether it was done before passing the decree or after that. A perusal of the application also does not reflect that on which part of the suit land the respondents had raised the construction after passing the decree. No doubt, it has come on record that the construction was carried out, but it cannot be said that when the same has been carried out. Once the partition has taken place on 23.12.2016, the respondents were free to raise construction on the land, which came to their share. 9. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the disobedience of the directions given by the Court, coupled with the fact that once the partition had taken place on 23.12.2016, it cannot be said that there is willful or intentional disobedience of the decree passed by the Court. In case the proceedings are protected by instituting appeal for years together, the respondents cannot be restrained to make improvement of the land, which had fallen to their share and allotted to them. 10. Furthermore, this Court can interfere with an 8 2026:HHC:13510 order passed by the executing Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC, if the executing Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction or the jurisdiction which was exercised is the result of some illegality or material irregularity. This Court neither finds any illegality nor irregularity in the order, which requires interference. 11. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 23 rd April, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge