No.2 to 12 are proforma respondents. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned
and 7 to 11. Remaining proforma respondents are ordered to be
deleted from the array of respondents. Registry is directed to carry
2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia,
"(a) That the impugned order dated 27-11-2021
(Annexure P/9) and Local Commissioner's report
(Annexure P/7) may kindly be quashed and set aside."
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:23381
3. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside order dated
27.11.2021 (Annexure P-9), which reads as under:-
"No objections sought to be filed. Let warrant of
.
possession as per the report of Local Commissioner be
issued and report for compliance be called for
30.01.2022."
The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the report of the
Local Commissioner (Annexure P-7), against which no objections
were filed by the petitioners, as is also culled out form order dated
27.11.2021.
4. to
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as at
the time when the demarcation was carried out by the Local
Commissioner, they had objected thereto at the spot, therefore, they
were under the bonafide impression that there was no need to file
any objection before learned Court below against the report of the
Local Commissioner. He further submits that it is a matter of record
that fraud has been played upon the petitioners and the
demarcation which has been carried out is not in terms of the
decree which was passed by the learned Court below.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the contention of the
petitioners deserves outright rejection, for the reason that as it is
evident from order dated 27.11.2021 that despite opportunity having
been granted to the parties to file objections in the Court against the
report of the Local Commissioner, as no objections were preferred by
them, therefore, they have no locus to assail the said order by way of
2025:HHC:23381
filing the present petition. He further submits that otherwise also,
when the demarcation was carried out by the Local Commissioner,
no objection was raised by the petitioners.
.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as learned counsel for respondent No.1 and other counsel for the
represented parties, this Court is of the considered view that filing of
this petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law.
7. It is not in dispute that there is a decree dated
01.08.2012 in favour of respondent No.1. For the last thirteen years,
the Decree Holders are waiting for execution of the said decree. In
terms of the documents appended with this petition by the
petitioners when the case was listed before the learned Executing
Court on 31.01.2020, the following order was passed:-
"This is an application under Order 26 Rule 9 and under
Order 20 Rule 18 readwith under Section 151 CPC filed
for appointment of Local Commissioner with the directions
to visit the spot and to make the partition separation of
the suit property marked by letters ABCDEFGHI shown in
red colour in the site plan Ext. PW-1/A forming part of
Khewat No. 819 min. Khatauni No 1250 1248 1199/458,
khasra No 1323 to 1332 and 1334 as entered in
Jamabandi for the year 2003-04, situated at Mohal Lalhn.
Tehsil Haroli District Una, HP Application is allowed for
the reasons stated therein Accordingly. Sh. Ravinder Garg,
retired Naib Tehsildar, Rio Village Nangra is hereby
appointed as Local Commissioner with the direction that
he will visit the spot to execute the commission and submit
his detailed report on 15 05 2020. His fees is assessed to
be at Rs.4,000/- which shall be paid by the applicant Let
2025:HHC:23381
necessary reference be made for executing the commission
Application. stands disposed of. Be tagged with main file.
Be listed for filing of report on above said date."
Thereafter, when the matter was again listed before the learned
.
Executing Court on 27.11.2021, it passed an order that as no
objections were sought to be filed against the report of the Local
Commissioner, therefore, let warrant of possession as per the report
of the Local Commissioner be issued and report for compliance be
called for. The order passed by the learned Executing Court on
27.11.2021 has already been quoted by me hereinabove.
8. In the light of the fact that no objections were filed
against the report of the Local Commissioner, the petitioners have no
locus to file this petition. The averments made in the petition as
were also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
because the petitioners had raised objections at the time of the
demarcation, therefore, they were under bonafide belief that no
written objections were required to be filed with the Court are
difficult to believe.
9. As it was a conscious decision of the petitioners not to
file objections against the report of the Local Commissioner, as is
evident from the averments made in the petition itself, they cannot
now be allowed to assail the order that was passed by learned
Executing Court on 27.11.2021.
10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.1/
plaintiff. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand
2025:HHC:23381
disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
.
July 18, 2025
(Rishi)
