Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ajay Mohan Goel

DECISION

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order, dated 2.6.2017 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Nadaun in Execution Petition No. 4/2016 titled "Kali Dass vs. Shanti Ram" may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Execution Petition may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice."

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that respondent-Kali Dass filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against present petitioner, i.e., Civil Suit No. 219/2011 titled as Kali Dass Vs. Shanti Ram. Said suit was decreed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. vide judgment and decree dated 6.6.2015 in the following terms:-

"In view of my findings on issue No. 1 to 6, supra, the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with cost and defendant is restrained from raising any construction or changing the nature of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 9 min, Khatauni No. 15, Khasra No. 296 area measuring 0-00-80 Hectares situated in village Dhamandar, Mouza Saproh, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur (H.P.) till the same is partitioned by metes and bound. Further, plaintiff is also entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction by way of demolition of the structure as shown in site plan Ext. PW-2/E which is 28 feet in length and 13 feet in width. Site plan Ext. PW-2/E shall form part and parcel of decree. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Case file after completion be consigned to record room."

3. Decree holder filed an application for execution of the said decree. Present petitioner preferred objections against the same. Learned Executing Court vide order dated 2.6.2017 disposed of the objections of the present petitioner by dismissing them in the following terms:-

"4. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. It is clear from the record that the court has passed Judgment and decree dated 06-06-2015 against the J.D. by which he was directed to demolish the structure as shown in the site plan Ext. PW-2/E which is 20 feet in length and 13 feet in width. It is well establish principle of law that a court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree. If the objections required examination or investigation of the facts executing court cannot entertain such objections. Executing court cannot question correctness or otherwise of the decree.

5. In this case also the J.D. raised objections which have already taken into consideration by the court who pass the decree. The executing court can determine those questions which arise subsequent to the passing of the decree. In this case there is no such new facts have been arisen after the passing of the decree. The objections of the J.D. are regarding the site plan Ext. PW-2/E which is part and parcel of decree dated 06.06.2015. Therefore, this question regarding the validity of site plan Ext. PW-2/E cannot be decided by the executing court. Therefore, I find no any triable issue in the objections of the J.D. Hence, I dismiss the objections without framing the issue and recording the evidence. Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in a case Nagesh v. Godouri MANU/HP/0661/2011 : 2011 (2) Shimla Law Cases 183, held that executing court can dismiss the objections without recording the evidence and framing of issues when thee is no triable issue arose from the objections.

6. Thus, keeping in view the reasons assigned above objections of the J.D. are dismissed. Consequently, warrant of possession is issued to the Collector with the directions to demolish the structure shown in the site plan Ext. PW-2/E in accord........