Authority: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Order Date: 03 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition No. CMPMO 461 of 2026, reserved on 01‑09‑2026 and decided on 03‑09‑2026, filed by the judgment debtors (petitioners) under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 5 August 2026 of the Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur (the Executing Court).
  • The order of the Executing Court had allowed the execution of a lease deed in favour of the decree holder, M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd, and dismissed the objections raised by the judgment debtors.
  • Background: The decree holder filed an execution application under Order 21 Rules 32 & 34 (5) CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, based on Civil Suit No. 160 of 2006 for specific performance and injunction concerning land (Khata 87 min, Khatoni 90 min, Khasra 602/474 & 659/476, 11 kanals, Tika Tikkar, Mouza Mehlta, Hamirpur). The trial court partially decreed on 24 April 2012, granting permanent prohibitory injunction but declining specific performance.
  • Appeals were filed: Defendant‑3 Ram Piari (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2012) and the plaintiff (Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2012). The First Appellate Court on 30 October 2014 dismissed the defendant’s appeal and allowed the plaintiff’s, modifying the decree to grant specific performance of the lease deed within three months.
  • The decree attained finality after the second appeal (RSA No. 62 of 2015) was dismissed on 16 August 2017.
  • Execution Application filed on 25 October 2018, annexing a draft lease deed and claiming permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (letter Rev. B F (10)‑237/2005 dated 6 February 2015).
  • Defendants raised preliminary objections: lack of Section 118 permission, non‑agriculturist status of the decree holder, violation of Rule 38 of the Tenancy Act, non‑joinder of parties, and that the 99‑year lease term exceeded the 30‑year limit prescribed by the State Government.
  • The Executing Court, on 5 August 2026, appointed Mr. Ashwani Kaushal as Local Commissioner, allowed the execution application, and dismissed all objections.
  • Petitioners argued that the Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to consider the mandatory statutory permission, and effectively enlarged the scope of execution.
  • The High Court examined the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, citing Supreme Court precedents (Valarmathi & Ors. v. Kumaresan 2025, Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors. 2026, Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, Rajbir v. Suraj Bhan 2022) which limit interference to cases of gross abuse, perverse findings, or violation of fundamental principles.
  • The Court found that the permission under Section 118 had been expressly mentioned in the draft lease deed and the accompanying letter, and the petitioners failed to demonstrate its absence.
  • The Court held that the objections concerning the lease term and non‑agriculturist status were considered by the Executing Court and correctly rejected, and that lack of detailed reasoning does not render the order perverse.
  • Consequently, the High Court concluded that the Executing Court acted within its jurisdiction, there was no perverse error, and the petition must be dismissed.

Final Outcome

  • The petition under Article 227 is dismissed.
  • The order of the Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur dated 5 August 2026, allowing execution of the lease deed and dismissing objections, is upheld.
  • Both parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 7 September 2026 at 10:00 a.m.
  • Any pending applications are to be disposed of, and the record is to be sent to the Executing Court via special messenger.

Topics: Land Lease, Article 227 Supervision