JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. A conclusive binding decree of possession, as, rendered, vis-a-vis, the DH/respondent herein (for short DH), and, qua the suit land, as, mentioned in the plaint, became put to execution hence before the learned Executing Court/Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. 2. During the pendency, of, execution petition bearing No. 5 of 2008, before the learned Executing Court, the, JD cast objections, vis-a-vis, the executablility, of, a binding, and, conclusive decree of possession, granted, vis-a-vis, the DH, and, qua the suit land, (i) and, his objections appertain, to, the learned Executing Court becoming dis-empowered, to put, the apposite decree to coercive execution, as the suit property occurred beyond, the, territorial limits, of, the jurisdiction, of, the learned Executing Court concerned, (ii) and, also appertained, vis-a-vis, want, of, valid demarcation being made, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, thereupon, the, decree, as, put to coercive execution, being not amenable, for its, apt execution. 3. However, under an order recorded, on, 10.2.2011, upon, the afore objections, as, constituted by the JD, before the learned Executing Court, they became dismissed, and, the learned counsels appearing for the contesting litigants, make a conjoint submission, before this Court vis-a-vis the afore order becoming conclusive. 4. Even though, despite, conclusivity becoming acquired by the afore order becoming pronounced, on 10.2.2011, (i) and, where after the learned Executing Court, had, issued warrants for possession, for their execution, by the official concerned, for, there through vacant possession, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, becoming completely, handed over by the JD, to, the DH. However, the official concerned, who, hence with the apt warrants, of, possession, proceeded to the relevant site, hence, vis-a-vis the completes execution, does, in the apposite report, as, drawn qua therewith, rather, hence make echoings therein, vis-a-vis, except possession, of, an abadi existing on khasra number 206, rather the possession, of, all the afore suit khasra numbers, becoming delivered, to, the DH by the JD. 5. The reason, for, the conclusive, and, binding decree, appertaining to the afore khasra numbers, becoming hence becoming precluded, vis-a-vis, its completes execution, (i) is echoed therein, to, arise, from, the DH making a projection, vis-a-vis, his not requiring, its, vacant possession, (ii) rather his aspiring to take possession, of, the constructed abadi, as, existing, on, khasra number 206. 5. The reason, for, the conclusive, and, binding decree, appertaining to the afore khasra numbers, becoming hence becoming precluded, vis-a-vis, its completes execution, (i) is echoed therein, to, arise, from, the DH making a projection, vis-a-vis, his not requiring, its, vacant possession, (ii) rather his aspiring to take possession, of, the constructed abadi, as, existing, on, khasra number 206. However, thereafter, on, 13.9.2011, a, compromise was entered inter-se, the, contesting litigants, where through, the DH agreed to exchange khasra number 206, with, the lands of the JD, as, disclosed therein. Thereafter, since its making, on, 13.9.2011, hence up to the making of the impugned order, the official concerned, neither insisted, upon, the completes compliance qua therewith, being meted, hence by the learned Executing Court, (a) nor the officers concerned, made any report, before the learned executing Court, that, unless skilled labour, is deployed, for, dismantling, the, abadi existing on khasra number 206, rather the vacant possession, of, the afore khasra number, being unamenable, for its becoming handed, over to, the DH. Significantly, hence, it was incumbent, upon, the learned Executing Court, to ensure the completes execution, of, the apt binding and conclusive decree, of, possession rather its untenably permitting the JDs, to, on anvil, of, drawings, of, a compromise deed inter-se him, and, the DH, hence preclude, the completes execution, of, the apt decree, (b) unless the validly drawn deed of exchange, stood tendered before it. Since, the afore deed remained untendered, hence before the learned executing Court, (c) thereupon, any reliance there ons hence by the JD, was grossly inapt, (d) nor, on anvil thereof, the learned executing Court, could permit any untenable procrastination hence by the JD, vis-a-vis, the completes execution, of, the apt binding, and, conclusive decree. 6. Be that as it may, in the impugned order, there also occurs a recital, vis-a-vis, (i) the DH denying the entering, into, of, a compromise with the DH. The afore denial, is, however without the DH denying his signatures, occurring on the appositely drawn compromise, inter-se, him, and, the JD, (ii) and, hence the learned Executing Court, was, prima-facie enjoined to mete deference therewith. The afore denial, is, however without the DH denying his signatures, occurring on the appositely drawn compromise, inter-se, him, and, the JD, (ii) and, hence the learned Executing Court, was, prima-facie enjoined to mete deference therewith. However, even for want of denial, by the DH, vis-a-vis, his signatures, as, borne on the apposite compromise, (iii) rather disables the, learned counsel for the JD, to, contend, that, the learned Executing Court, becoming interdicted to put, to, its completes execution, hence, the conclusive, and, binding decree, (iv) as, in the afore report made, before the Executing Court, rather the plaintiff, ventilated his aspiration qua the possession, of, the constructed abadi being ensured to be handed over to him, rather than vacant possession vis-a-vis khasra number 206, hence becoming handed over to him, rather after the structure existing thereon becoming dismantled, (v) and, with its drawings also evidently occurring much anterior, to, the making of the impugned order, besides with the afore report hence containing the afore echoings, becoming made subsequent, to, a conclusive order of dismissal, becoming rendered, upon, the afore reared objections, hence, by the JD, vis-a-vis, executability, of, the apposite execution petition, (vi) and, when thereat no compromise was drawn, inter-se, the contesting litigants, (vii) rather when the afore compromise is drawn much subsequent thereto, thereupon no belated untenable insistence, was required to be made, by the JDs, upon, DH, to, mete deference, vis-a-vis, any compromise drawn amongst them, as, any insistence, as, made qua therewith, (viii) not only, visible deprives the DH, vis-a-vis, the completes benefits, of, a conclusive, and, binding decree of possession, as, pronounced qua him in the apposite Civil Suit, (ix) but, also has untenably hence forestalled, the, learned Executing Court, to, perform its judicial function, of, its ensuring qua the completes efficacious execution, becoming visited, vis-a-vis, the conclusive, and, binding decree, of, possession, pronounced, vis-a-vis the DH, upon, the Civil Suit concerned. 7. Lastly, it appears that the afore attempt, of, the JD is merely a device on his part to delay, the, completes execution of the apt conclusive and binding decree, of possession, as, recorded by the Court concerned. 8. Moreso, when, an, apposite execution petition stands constituted in 2011, and, has remained not completely executed, up to now, thereupon, there is no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.