2026:HHC:16404 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.237 of 2025 Decided on: 11.05.2026 Baldev Raj ….Petitioner Versus Vinod Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Rupinder S. Minhas, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral) The present petition arises out of the order, as passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, dated 08.01.2025, whereby warrant of arrest has been issued against the JD/present petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are that the present respondent, Vinod Kumar filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,82,500/- as damages i.e. Rs.3,32,500/- as damages to the building and Rs.2,50,000/- on account of malicious prosecution. 3. The suit filed by the respondent/DH was contested by the present petitioner/JD. Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.10.2014, decreed the suit filed by the respondent for a sum of Rs.5,32,500/- with pending and future 2 2026:HHC:16404 interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of decretal amount against the present petitioner/JD. 4. The decree holder filed an execution petition for recovery of the said amount. On 08.01.2025, in the application, which was filed by the decree holder under Order 21 Rules 37, 38 and 39 of CPC for issuance of arrest warrant against the JD by way of detaining him in the civil imprisonment and also for subsistence allowance, the arrest warrants were ordered to be issued against the present petitioner, returnable for 03.03.2025. 5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 03.03.2025 and on the said date, it was ordered that the warrant of arrest issued against the JD received back un-executed. Let, again fresh warrant of arrest be issued against the JD, returnable for 24.03.2025. The case was listed on 24.03.2025, when again warrant of arrest was issued against the JD/petitioner on filing PF and taking steps within five days returnable for 23.04.2025. 6. The present petitioner/JD has assailed the impugned order by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court had issued notices to the respondent on 21.05.2025. In CMP No.11130 of 2025, it was ordered that the operation of impugned order dated 08.01.2025, passed by 3 2026:HHC:16404 learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi, in Civil Suit No.30/10 shall remain stayed subject to the deposit of 50% of the decretal amount in the Registry of this Court. Thereafter, the case was listed before this Court on 25.06.2025 and it was recorded in the order that a sum of Rs.2,66,250/- has been deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of the Court. Thereafter, the case was listed on different dates. 7. On 18.03.2026, it was recorded in the order that learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions had made a statement that his client is ready to deposit the entire decretal amount along with interest before the executing Court on or before 21.04.2026. On the said date, it was ordered that till the next date of hearing, the interim protection, which was granted by this Court, shall continue and the case was fixed for 21.04.2026. The case was listed before this Court on 21.04.2026 and thereafter, the matter was posted on 22.04.2026. Again on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was posted for today. 8. Admittedly, in the present case the judgment and decree has been passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mandi on 13.10.2014, whereby decree for a sum of Rs.5,32,500/- with pending and future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the 4 2026:HHC:16404 date of filing of the suit till the realization of decretal amount has been passed. The said decree was passed way back about 12 years ago. The decree holder/respondent is running from pillar to post for the execution of the said decree but till date the decree has not been satisfied. Though, reasonable opportunities were granted by this Court to the petitioner to abide or comply with judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, but the petitioner has failed to deposit the entire decretal amount along with up-to-date interest before the learned executing Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which has been passed by learned trial Court. Consequently, this Court in its considered opinion does not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge May 11, 2026 (vt)