ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present revision petition is filed under section 115 of code of civil procedure 1908 against order dated 12.5.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division Karsog District Mandi H.P. in Execution Petition No. 17-X of 2001 title Smt. Lajja Devi Vs. Kanshi and others. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE: 2. Decree holders instituted civil suit for partition and separate possession against judgment debtors. Decree holders also sought relief of perpetual injunction restraining judgment debtors from raising any type of construction upon suit land comprised in khasra Nos. 1450, 1451, 1452, 1447, 1448 and 1449 situated in mauja Churag Tehsil Karsog District Mandi HP. Learned Trial Court dismissed civil suit filed by decree holders. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court decree holders filed civil appeal No. 61 of 1993 title Yog Raj and others Vs. Kanshi Ram and others which was disposed of by learned Appellate court on 12.3.1999. Learned Appellate court allowed appeal filed by appellants. Learned Appellate court set aside judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. Learned Appellate court passed preliminary decree for partition of suit property comprised in khasra Nos. 1450, 1451 and 1452 situated in mauja Churag District Mandi H.P Learned Appellate court further directed that suit property comprised in khasra Nos. 1447, 1448 and 1449 situated in mauja Churag District Mandi H.P. would be partitioned through revenue courts. Learned Appellate court also passed decree of perpetual injunction against judgment debtors restraining judgment debtors not to raise any construction in suit property till partition of suit land. 4. Decree holder Smt. Lajja Devi filed Execution Petition No. 17-X of 2001 title Smt. Lajja Devi Vs. Kanshi Ram and others. Learned Executing Court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed following issues in execution petition on dated 5.7.2002. 1. Whether as per judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge dated 12.3.1999 judgment debtors were ordered not to raise any construction on khasra Nos. 1450, 1451, 1452, 1447, 1448 and 1449 situated at mauja Churag Tehsil Karsog District Mandi HP? ..OPDH 2. Whether judgment debtors during the pendency of execution have started raising construction?. ..OPDH 3. In case issues No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative whether judgment debtors should be detained in civil prison or their property should be attached and should be sold in auction?. …OPDH. 4. ..OPDH 2. Whether judgment debtors during the pendency of execution have started raising construction?. ..OPDH 3. In case issues No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative whether judgment debtors should be detained in civil prison or their property should be attached and should be sold in auction?. …OPDH. 4. Whether judgment debtors are not raising any construction over suit land?. …OPJDs 1 to 6. 5. Relief. Learned Executing court decided issues No. 1 to 3 in negative. Learned Executing Court decided issue No.4 in affirmative. Learned Executive court dismissed execution petition filed by decree holder Smt. Lajja Devi. 5. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Executing Court Smt. Lajja Devi has filed present revision petition. 6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition: 1. Whether revision petition filed under Section 115 of code of civil procedure 1908 by revisionist is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?. 2. Relief. 8. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 8.1. DHW1 Smt. Lajja Devi has stated that decree holders have filed civil suit against judgment debtors. She has stated that appeal was also filed against judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court. She has also stated that learned Appellate court has directed judgment debtors not to raise any type of construction over suit land till partition. She has stated that copy of jamabandi is Ext PA and copy of decree is Ext PB. She has stated that Keshav Ram judgment debtor has raised construction over vacant portion of suit land. She has stated that Keshav Ram judgment debtor be directed to demolish construction raised over vacant portion of suit land prior to partition. In cross-examination she has stated that judgment debtors No.1 to 6 namely Kanshi Ram, Chaman Lal, Joginder Pal, Harish Chander, Smt. Champa Devi and Smt. Padma Devi did not raise construction over vacant portion of suit land after judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate court. 8.2 DHW2 Chandermani has stated that parties are known to him and he has also seen suit land. He has stated that Keshav Ram started construction over vacant portion of suit land and also raised lintel over suit land. 8.2 DHW2 Chandermani has stated that parties are known to him and he has also seen suit land. He has stated that Keshav Ram started construction over vacant portion of suit land and also raised lintel over suit land. In cross-examination he has stated that judgment debtors No. 1 to 6 namely Kanshi Ram, Chaman Lal, Joginder Pal, Harish Chander, Smt. Champa Devi and Smt. Padma Devi did not raise construction over vacant suit land after passing of decree. 8.3 DHW3 Naru Ram has stated that parties are known to him. He has stated that Keshav Ram has started construction over vacant portion of suit land and started raising pillars. He has stated that Keshav Ram was requested not to raise construction over suit land in view of decree passed by Court but Keshav Ram did not stop construction work. In cross-examination he has stated that judgment debtors 1 to 6 namely Kanshi Ram, Chaman Lal, Joginder Pal, Harish Chander, Smt. Champa Devi and Smt. Padma Devi did not raise construction over vacant portion of suit land. 8.4 DHW4 Param Dev Naib Tehsildar Karsog has stated that he visited the spot as Local Commissioner as directed by court and submitted report Ext PW4/A. He has stated that field book is Ext PW4/B. He has stated that new constructions raised as mentioned in field book Ext PW4/B. He has stated that report and field map have been signed by him. He has stated that Smt. Lajja Devi has raised new construction over suit land comprised in khasra No. 1448/6, 1449/5 and 1450/4 kita 3 measuring 0-1-13 bighas. He has stated that Smt. Lajja Devi told that she is in possession of above stated khasra numbers. He has denied suggestion that he did not prepare field book Ext PW4/B as per factual position. 8.5 JDW1 Sh Kanshi Ram has stated that his house and land is situated in village Sanoti. He has stated that his old house was since time of his ancestral. He has stated that about 8/9 years ago he uprooted old house and raised new house. He has stated that thereafter he did not raise any new construction. In cross examination he has stated that in judgment and decree judgment debtors were directed not to raise any construction over vacant land. He has admitted that DHW4 Naib Tehsildar visited spot. He has stated that about 8/9 years ago he uprooted old house and raised new house. He has stated that thereafter he did not raise any new construction. In cross examination he has stated that in judgment and decree judgment debtors were directed not to raise any construction over vacant land. He has admitted that DHW4 Naib Tehsildar visited spot. He has denied suggestion that it was observed by Local Commissioner that constructions were raised over vacant portion of land. 8.6 JDW2 Keshav Ram has stated that they are five brothers and one sister. He has stated that suit land was joint earlier upon which his father had raised house. He has stated that his father had given constructed house to his three brothers and allotted vacant land to his two brothers and one sister. He has stated that vacant land was given to Gytri Devi, Bhagat Ram and Yog Raj. He has stated that Gytri Devi and Yog Raj have given their shares to Bhagat Ram. He has stated that Bhagat Ram is raising five stories building. He has stated that he did not raise any new construction. He has stated that he repaired his kitchen in the year 1999. He has denied suggestion that in the year 2001 and 2002 he has forcibly raised construction over vacant portion of decretal land. 8.7 JDW3 Mahesh Sharma has stated that parties are known to him and he has seen house of parties. He has stated that Bhagat Ram has raised three stories building. He has stated that Bhagat Ram has raised projection of his house upon the house of Keshav Ram. He has stated that Bhagat Ram has raised construction by way of RCC manner. He has stated that Keshav Ram did not raise any new construction. He has admitted that he is tenant of Keshav Ram. He has stated that he took shop on rent in the year 1995 from Keshav Ram. He has stated that he does not know that in the year 2001 and 2002 Keshav Ram has raised new construction over land mentioned in decree sheet. He has denied suggestion that projection of the house of Bhagat Ram is not upon the house of Keshav Ram. 9. He has stated that he does not know that in the year 2001 and 2002 Keshav Ram has raised new construction over land mentioned in decree sheet. He has denied suggestion that projection of the house of Bhagat Ram is not upon the house of Keshav Ram. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that findings of Executing Court upon issue Nos 1,2,3 and 4 are contrary to law and contrary to prove facts is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. DHW1 namely Lajja Devi when she appeared in witness box has specifically stated in cross examination that judgment debtors Nos. 1 to 6 namely Kanshi Ram, Chaman Lal, Joginder Pal, Harish Chander, Smt. Champa Devi and Smt. Padma Devi did not raise any construction over vacant portion of suit land after passing of decree by learned Appellate court. It is well settled law that facts admitted need not to be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence act 1872. Testimony of DHW1 is also corroborated by DHW2 Chandermani and DHW2 has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that judgment debtors No. 1 to 6 did not raise any type of construction over vacant land after passing of decree by learned Appellate court. Similarly DHW3 Naru Ram has also stated in positive manner that judgment debtors No. 1 to 6 did not raise any construction over vacant portion of suit land after passing of decree. DHW1 Lajja Devi, DHW2 Chandermani and DHW3 Naru Ram have exonerated judgment debtors No. 1 to 6. As per testimonies of DHW1 Lajja Devi, DHW2 Chandermani and DHW3 Naru Ram it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that judgment debtors No. 1 to 6 did not violate decree of learned Appellate court at any point of time intentionally and voluntarily. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that Sh Keshav Ram judgment debtor has violated judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate court intentionally and voluntarily and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that it is proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that Sh Keshav Ram judgment debtor has violated judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate court intentionally and voluntarily and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Revisionist Smt. Lajja Devi filed CMP No. 8659 of 2015 in present revision petition under order 1 rule 10 CPC and pleaded that Smt. Padma Devi widow of Sh Gurbax Singh expired and her legal representatives are already co-party as co-respondents No. 1 to 4 in revision petition. Revisionist further pleaded in CMP No. 8659 of 2015 that judgment debtor Keshav Ram also expired and pleaded that allegations against judgment debtor No. 7 Keshav Ram are personal in nature and upon his death cause of action comes to an end and sought permission of Court to delete the name of Keshav Ram judgment debtor from memo of parties in revision petition. Thereafter Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.8.2015 deleted names of Smt. Padma Devi and Sh Keshav Ram from memo of parties in revision petition. In view of the fact that revisionist has herself admitted that cause of action against non-revisionist Keshav Ram is personal in nature and comes to an end after his death court is of the opinion that no action is warranted against deceased Keshav Ram and his L.Rs in present revision petition. 11. It is well settled law that judicial proceedings under order 21 rule 32 CPC are punitive in nature. It is well settled law that positive, cogent and reliable evidence is required in judicial proceedings filed under order 21 rule 32 CPC. In view of the fact that DHW1 Lajja Devi, DHW2 Chandermani and DHW3 Naru Ram did not state anything about judgment debtors No. 1 to 6 in examination-in-chief and cross examination and in view of fact that revisionist has herself admitted that cause of action against Keshav Ram was personal in nature and comes to an end after his death court is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to interfere in the order of Executing Court. 12. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that in view of report of Local Commissioner placed on record present revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. In view of the testimonies of DHW1 Lajja Devi, DHW2 Chandermani and DHW3 Naru Ram wherein they have specifically stated that judgment debtors No. 1 to 6 did not raise any type of new construction over vacant portion of suit land after passing of decree by learned Appellate court no action is warranted. Even DHW1 Lajja Devi, DHW2 Chandermani and DHW3 Naru Ram did not state in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination that judgment debtors No. 1 to 6 namely Kanshi Ram, Chaman Lal, Joginder Pal, Harish Chander, Smt. Champa Devi and Smt. Padma Devi have raised construction over suit land mentioned in decree sheet after passing of decree. DHW1 Lajja Devi and DHW2 Chandermani and DHW3 Naru Ram have stated that only Keshav Ram has raised construction over vacant land after passing of decree by learned Appellate court and in revision petition revisionist Smt. Lajja Devi has herself admitted in CMP No. 8659 of 2015 that cause of action against Keshav Ram judgment debtor has comes to end after his death. Smt. Lajja Devi has admitted in CMP No. 8659 of 2015 that cause of action against deceased Keshav Ram was personal in nature. Smt. Lajja Devi herself filed application under order 1 rule 10 CPC in revision petition and sought deletion of name of Keshav Ram from revision petition. Smt. Lajja Devi did not implead L.Rs of Keshav Ram as co-party in revision petition. It is well settled law that no order can be passed against any person who is not impleaded as co-party in judicial proceedings on the concept of audi alteram partem (No one should be condemned unheard). 13. It is well settled law that High Court cannot reverse findings of fact in revision petition unless findings of fact are perverse. See AIR 1991 SC 455 Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan Vs. Tuffail Mohammed. See AIR 1969 SC 580 Indore Municipality Vs. K.N.Palsikar. See AIR 1995 SC 1357 P.Udayani Devi Vs. V.V.Rajeshwara Prasad Rao. See AIR 2002 SC 1004 Gurdial Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja. It is held that findings of learned executing court are not perverse nor illegal. See AIR 1991 SC 455 Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan Vs. Tuffail Mohammed. See AIR 1969 SC 580 Indore Municipality Vs. K.N.Palsikar. See AIR 1995 SC 1357 P.Udayani Devi Vs. V.V.Rajeshwara Prasad Rao. See AIR 2002 SC 1004 Gurdial Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Aneja. It is held that findings of learned executing court are not perverse nor illegal. It is held that learned executing court did not commit any material irregularity in execution. In view of the above stated facts and case law supra point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Relief). 14. In view of findings upon point No.1 revision petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned executing Court along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending application (s) if any also disposed of.