2026:HHC:19022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 737/2024 Reserved on: 06.05.2026 Decided on: 20.05.2026 Raj Kumar & anr. …..Petitioners Versus Surinder Kumar …Respondent ______________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the order, dated 22.10.2024, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby objections filed by one of the judgment debtors, namely, Paramjit Singh to the application of the present respondent/decree holder, namely, Surinder Kumar for execution of decree, dated 20.03.2006, passed in Civil Suit No. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 39/2002, titled as Surinder Kumar vs. Kiran Bala & ors., have been dismissed. 2 Facts of the case are that the present respondent/decree holder filed a suit for possession in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, at Dharamshala on 22.5.2002 against the defendants, namely, Kiran Bala, Parveen, Neelam, Neena, Narinder Singh and Paramjit Singh, sons and daughters of Arjan Singh. It was averred in the plaint that the defendants/JDs had been owners of Shop No.286 measuring 25” x 13”, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 168 min/686 min, Khasra No. 827, situated in Ward No. 4, in the area of Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala within limits of Municipal Council, Dharamshala. The respondent/DH had been tenant in possession of the premises in dispute under the defendants/JDs. Since the premises in dispute required extensive repairs, therefore, on 14.06.2000, defendant No.6, Paramjit Singh and the respondent/DH entered into an agreement, Ext. PW2/A and as per its terms and conditions, the respondent/DH was to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- in two installments to defendant No.6, who in turn, was to carry out repair of the suit premises within 45 days and after completion of the repair work, he was to hand over the possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent/DH. It was averred by the respondent/DH that he 3 paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to defendant No.6 on 14.06.2000. He also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to defendant No.6/JD. Defendant No.6 though carried out repair work of the premises in dispute and pursuant to that the plaintiff requested him to deliver back possession of the premises, however defendant No.6/JD failed to do so. 3 As per plaintiff/DH, he issued legal notice, Ext. PW2/B to defendant No.6 on 14.09.2001. Despite receipt of notice, defendant No.6/JD failed to act upon the request of the plaintiff/DH. Defendant No.6/JD started his own business in the suit premises. The plaintiff/DH had not surrendered his tenancy of the premises in dispute in favour of defendant No.6/JD. The possession of the defendants/JDs in the suit premises was unauthorized and illegal. It was averred that the plaintiff/DH was entitled to possession of the premises in question. The plaintiff/DH was earning his livelihood from the shop in question. The plaintiff/DH claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- for unauthorized occupation of the premises in dispute by the defendants/JDs. Hence, suit for possession of the suit premises and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- against the defendants was filed before the learned trial court. 4 The said suit was contested by the defendants/JDs. It was admitted that plaintiff/DH and defendant No.6 had 4 entered into an agreement, Ext. PW2/A. However, stand was taken that the plaintiff/DH did not comply with terms and conditions of the agreement. It was stated that defendant No.6/JD had reconstructed the shop in third week of October, 2000 and the plaintiff/DH had been duly informed about the completion of the work of reconstruction by defendant No.6. however, plaintiff did not take back the possession of the premises as per rent of Rs.1500/-. 5 The learned trial Court framed the issues and vide its judgment and decree, dated 20.3.2006 decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/DH for possession of the shop in dispute and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for use and occupation in terms of loss of business to the plaintiff. 6 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the out of six defendants, only two defendants, namely Paramjit Singh and Narinder Singh filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra on 18.04.2006. Remaining defendants, namely, Kiran Bala, Parveen, Neelam and Neena, did not assail the said findings before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.06.2008 dismissed the appeal preferred by the aforesaid defendants/JDs. 5 7 Still feeling aggrieved, defendants No. 1 to 6/JDs filed regular second appeal (RSA No. 436/2008) before this Court, which too came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 21.05.2018 and judgments and decrees, as passed by both the Courts below, were upheld. 8 After passing of the judgment by this Court in RSA No. 436/2008, plaintiff/DH filed an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC read with Section 151 CPC on 05.07.2018 for execution of judgment and decree dated 20.03.2006 passed in Civil Suit No. 39/2006, for attachment of property of the defendants/JDs and sending them to civil prison. 9 Thereafter, the defendants/JDs approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.33507/2018, titled as Paramjit Singh vs. Surinder Kumar, wherein, in para 1A of the grounds of appeal, it was specifically mentioned that Kiran Bala, who was appellant No.3 before this Court in RSA No. 436/2008, expired on 11.05.2018 and hence, a separate application is being filed along with special leave petition in order to seek permission of the Court to bring the legal heirs of Kiran Bala on record. 10 The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated, 02.01.2019, allowed the application having been filed by the defendants/JDs for substitution of legal representatives of 6 deceased Kiran Bala, who was appellant No.3 in RSA No.436/2000 before this Court. In the amended case title before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after death of Kiran Bala, both sons, Raj Kumar and Sanjay Kumar and daughter Kajal Sachdeva were arrayed as party appellants before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 02.01.2019 dismissed the special leave petition filed by the defendants/JDs. 11 On 07.03.2020, one of the defendants/JDs, i.e. defendant/JD No.6 Paramjit Singh filed objections to application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff/DH, wherein various objections were taken. It was averred in the objections that the judgment dated 21.05.2018 in RSA No. 436/2008 has been passed against a dead person. It was stated that Kiran Bala, defendant No.1 had expired on 11.05.2018 i.e. prior to passing of the judgment, dated 21.05.2018. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are co-owners in possession of the suit premises, therefore, the same cannot be ordered to be handed over to the plaintiff/DH in absence of other co-owners, who are in actual physical possession of the suit premises. It was averred that plaintiff/DH got the names of defendants/JDs No. 1 to 5 deleted from memo of parties and as such, execution cannot be ordered against the said defendants. 7 12 The learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala vide order, dated 22.10.2024 dismissed the objections as filed by defendant No.6/JD, Paramjit Singh. 13 Feeling dissatisfied, legal representatives and sons of deceased Kiran Bala, namely, Raj Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, have approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14 It is contended by Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners that the impugned order, as passed by the learned Executing Court, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the Court below has wrongly dismissed the objections as filed by defendant No.6, Paramjit Singh. He has submitted that since defendant No.1 Kiran Bala had expired during the pendency of RSA No. 436/2008 i.e. prior to judgment and decree, dated 21.05.2018 passed therein, therefore, the same is nullity. 15 On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate, that the impugned order is legal, valid and sustainable and it does not call for any interference in any manner. He has submitted that the respondent/DH is fighting for his cause for the last more than 25 years and he is running 8 from pillar to post for getting the possession of the suit property, however, on one pretext or the other, the defendants/JDs are trying to prolong the litigation in order to deprive him to get fruits of the decrees, which have been passed by the different Courts in his favour. 16 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case file at hand including records of RSA No. 436/2008. 17 In the present case, the present respondent/decree holder filed a suit for possession of the shop in question in Court before the learned Trial Court on 22.5.2002. It is the case of the respondent/DH that the defendants/JDs had been owners of Shop in question situated in Ward No. 4, in the area of Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala within limits of Municipal Council, Dharamshala and he had been tenant in possession of the premises in dispute under the defendants/JDs. On 14.6.2000, defendant No.6, Paramjit Singh and the respondent/DH entered into an agreement, Ext. PW2/A on the terms and conditions that the respondent/DH would pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- in two installments to defendant No.6, who in turn, would carry out repair of the premises within 45 days. It was also agreed that after completion of the repair work, defendant No.6 would hand over the possession of the premises in dispute to the 9 respondent/DH. After carrying out repair work of the premises in dispute, the plaintiff requested him to deliver back possession of the premises, however he failed to do so. Though in the written statement, execution of the agreement, dated 14.6.2000 was duly admitted, however all the averments as made in the suit were denied and refuted. 18 The learned trial court, as noticed above, vide its judgment and decree, dated 20.3.2006, decreed the suit filed by plaintiff/DH for possession of the shop in dispute and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for use and occupation in terms of loss of business of the plaintiff. The judgment and decree, dated 20.03.2006 stood affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, thereafter by this Court in RSA No. 436/2008 and ultimately by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.33507/2018, titled as Pramajeet Singh vs. Surinder Kumar. 19 The only contention, which has been raised before this Court by Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate, is that defendant No.1 Kiran Bala died on 11.05.2018. He has submitted that since RSA No. 436/2008 was decided against a dead person, therefore, the judgment passed therein is nullity. 20 Though this Court is in agreement to the well settled legal position of law, however in the instant case, the facts and 10 circumstances do not attract the said principle of law. As noticed above, after passing of the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2018, the defendants/JDs, filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.33507/2018, titled as Pramajeet Singh vs. Surinder Kumar before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in para 1A of grounds of appeal, it was specifically mentioned that Kiran Bala, had expired on 11.05.2018 and a separate application is being filed along with special leave petition in order to seek permission of the Court to bring the legal heirs of Kiran Bala on record. So this fact was placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the defendants/JDs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 02.01.2019 allowed the application for substitution and thereafter legal representatives of deceased Kiran Bala were brought on record and amended case title was prepared, which shows that Kiran Bala is being shown as dead and her legal representatives Raj Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, both sons, and Kajal Sachdeva, daughter, have been arrayed as appellant No.3(a) to 3(c). On 02.01.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Leave to Appeal as filed by the defendants/JDs. Once the Hon’ble Apex Court has substituted the legal heirs of deceased Kiran Bala, defendant No.1 and thereafter leave to appeal has been dismissed, therefore, contention of the learned 11 counsel for the petitioners, which is tried to be projected in the instant case, does not hold good. 21 The facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff/DH filed suit against six defendants. The suit was decreed on 20.03.2005 and against the said findings, appeal under Section 96 CPC was preferred only by two defendants, namely Paramjit Singh and Narinder Singh. Remaining defendants, including Kiran Bala, Parveen, Neelam and Neena, daughters of Arjan Singh did not assail the said findings before the learned first Appellate Court and they accepted the judgment and decree, as passed by the learned trial court. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned District Judge, when regular second appeal was filed before this Court, then the same was filed by all the defendants/JDs. Kiran Bala had accepted the findings as rendered by the learned trial court by not filing the appeal under Section 96 CPC. The case file reveals that the objections have been preferred only by defendant No.6, Paramjit Singh. Against dismissal of the objections of defendant No.6, now surprisingly, present petition has not been filed by the said defendant, but the same has been filed by sons of late Kiran Bala, defendant No.1/J.D. 22 The learned Trial Court has observed in its order that the respondent/DH got deleted names of defendants No.1 to 5/JDs on the ground that they were not necessary parties. The 12 respondent/DH has sought enforcement of the decree against defendant No.6, Paramjit Singh, therefore, contention which is being raised by legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1/JD is not sustainable. 23 Once Kiran Bala had accepted the findings as rendered by the learned trial court by not filing any appeal under Section 96 CPC, therefore, at this stage, objections which are being tried to be raised are not legal, valid and sustainable in the eyes law. As observed above, defendant No.6/J.D. who preferred the objections before the learned Executing Court did not assail the said order, whereby objections filed by him have been ordered to be dismissed. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of legal representatives of defendant No.1 in order to prolong the execution petition. The conduct of the JDs shows that on one pretext or the other, they were and are frustrating the decree which was passed by the courts below and stood affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The suit stood filed in the year 2002 and despite passing of 25 years, the respondent/DH has not been able to avail benefits/fruits of the decree. The learned Executing Court after appreciating the material placed on record has considered the objections and rightly dismissed the same. This Court sees no infirmity or illegality in the order as passed by the learned Executing Court 13 on 22.10.2024. There is no jurisdictional error by the learned Executing Court. 24 The petitioner has approached this court by invoking provisions of article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. This is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court. 25 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sugarbai M. Siddiq vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (Dead) by LRs, (2001), has held as under:- “6. There can be little doubt that in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to see whether the lower courts/tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether the impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularity; in other words, the court is concerned not with decision but with decision making process. On this ground alone the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.” 26 In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 (4) SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 14 “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do 15 the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 27 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13801/2025, titled as Shri Digant vs. M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & ors., has held as follows: “22. The scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.1 This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals 16 within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.” 28 In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) 20th May, 2026 Judge (pankaj)