Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1464/2026 of ASHOK KUMAR Vs ANIL CHAMOLI on 29 May 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 1464 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Manish Lohani, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff filed
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS No. 1464 of 2026
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Manish Lohani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed on 30.05.2008 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh and the defendants, their servants and agents and the persons who were under their control were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as well as restrained from raising any construction.
3. Subsequently, the plaintiff being decree holder filed execution proceeding and the execution proceeding was dismissed on 09.05.2024 holding that the plaintiff / decree holder could not establish that the defendants, their servants and agents were interfering in his possession.
Being aggrieved, the revision was filed and the revisional court partly allowed the revision in part and remand the matter to the executing court to proceed with the execution proceedings afresh only against the defendant no.2.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the executing court should execute the judgment and decree in letter and spirit and since the decree is against the defendants, his servants and the agents, therefore, the executing court cannot confined the executing proceedings to the defendants, who were party to the suit.
5. Admittedly, the decree was passed on 30.05.2008 and almost 18 years have been passed and now the matter has been remanded by the revisional court to the executing court to decide the execution proceedings only against the defendant no.2.
6. This court is fully agree with the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is of the view that the executing court should proceed with the execution proceedings strictly in order to implement the decree in its true sense. Since the defendants, their servants and agents were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff to the suit property, therefore, the executing court should proceed not only against the defendants but also against the servants and agents of the defendants.
7. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the executing court to proceed and expedite the execution proceedings afresh against all the defendants, their
servants and agents and decide the same preferably within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order without being influenced with the order impugned.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
29.05.2026
Shiv/