JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - Scope of interference in the petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC is now well settled. The Decree Holder is aggrieved of the dismissal of his application filed under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC in terms of impugned order dated 16.5.2005, passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Case No. 4/10 of 1997, titled as Munshi Ram v. Shri Sohanu and others. 2. It is not in dispute that the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1995, passed in Civil Suit No. 158/1 of 1989, inter se the parties, has attained finality. The present petitioner who is the successor-in-interest of the original plaintiff alleged disobedience of the judgment and decree by the respondents herein/their predecessors-in-interest. 3. To substantiate violation of the judgment and decree so passed against the respondents, petitioner got appointed a Local Commissioner (Advocate) for getting the land demarcated. The said land was got demarcated by the Local Commissioner with the help of Patwari. 4. Significantly, neither the Local Commissioner nor the Patwari who facilitated preparation of demarcation report were examined during adjudication of the application before the trial Court. Report was simply tendered in evidence by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the Court below rightly held the petitioner not to have proved the report, in accordance with law or having established the factum of wilful disobedience of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.