(1.) By way of this Revision Petition, the petitioner has challenged order dtd. 29/7/2003, passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., in CMA No.29-62002, titled as Bhupinder Singh vs. Madan Sharma, in terms whereof, an application filed under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed by the learned Executing Court.
(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, i.e. late Shri Bhupinder Singh Southa, was the Decree Holder who filed an application under Order 21, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code against the present petitioner, i.e. the Judgment Debtor for the execution of the decree passed by the Court in his favour. In Civil Suit No.19-1/1994, titled as of Bhupinder Singh and others vs. Mast Ram and others. As per the Decree Holder, the Judgment Debtor was permanently restrained from interfering with the possession of the Decree Holder in the suit land measuring 2 biswas, comprised in khasra No.840/1, out of khasra No.840, situated in Chak Bateori, Pargana Shantha, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. Despite the Judgment Debtor having full knowledge of the decree and sufficient time to obey the same he put a lental over the wall and structure on 9/6/2001 and thereafter encroached upon the land of the Decree Holder by extending the lental in issue. This according to the Decree Holder was willful disobedience of the decree passed by the Civil Court dtd. 19/10/1996. Same was contested by the Judgment Debtor who inter alia alleged that the Decree Holder was not in possession of the suit land because he had entered into a compromise with the Judgment Debtor on 26/7/1999 and agreed to withdraw the execution. It was further the stand of the Judgment Debtor that the suit land was in possession of the Judgment Debtor and he was having every right to use it in the manner he liked.
(3.) Learned Executing Court framed the following issues:-