IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. : 298 of 2021 Reserved on : 16.06.2026 Date of Decision: 22.06.2026 Uploaded on : 22.06.2026 ________________________________________________________ Smt. Kartari Devi (through LRs) and Anr. ...Petitioners/plaintiffs. Versus Sh. Virender Mohan ...Respondent/defendant. Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners :Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shrishti Negi and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocates. For the respondent :Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Mr. Avinash Mandhotra, Advocates. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of the judgment dated 23.09.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 2021, titled as Kartari Devi and Anr. Vs. Virender Mohan, whereby the appeal 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) preferred by the plaintiffs/petitioners was dismissed and the order dated 08.03.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. IV, Hamirpur, H.P., in C.M.A. No. 32 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2021, was affirmed, whereby, the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/ petitioners filed a suit under Sections 34, 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking a declaration to the following effect:- (a) That plaintiffs/ petitioners are Bartandaran in Village Har and have exercised their Bartandari rights over the land comprised in Khata No. 123 min, Khatoni No. 161 min, Khasra No. 465, measuring 0-02-10 hectare, as per jamabandi for the year 2014-15, situated in Mohal Har, Mouza Jangal, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P.. It is the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that they are the residents of Village Har and they have their house over Khasra No. 464 since their ancestor’s time. b) That there is also a temple of Bawa-Sidh-Chano existing over the suit land since the time immemorial 3 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) from where the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of locality are worshiping since their ancestor’s time. c) That the suit land has been kept in the reserve pool for exercising Bartandari rights as per their choice. d). That defendant/respondent is a very clever person and he in the absence of the plaintiffs has got deleted the entries of Bartandari rights from the column of possession in the revenue records in collusion with the revenue officials by showing him owner in possession of the same. The defendant is not in the possession over the suit land in any capacity. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners that the defendant had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 266 of 2004, titled Virender Mohan Vs. State of H.P. before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., seeking declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land and attestation of mutation No. 243 regarding the vestment of the suit land in the State of H.P. is illegal and further prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction. The learned Senior Civil Judge Hamirpur, H.P. had decreed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining the defendant/State from dispossessing the plaintiffs or interfering with the possession of 4 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) the present defendant, save and except, in accordance with law. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant further filed an application on the false grounds vide Misc. Case No. SDH/O.K.-MB 13 of 2017, titled Virender Mohan Vs. State of H.P., regarding confirmation of proprietary rights, which was allowed by the learned Sub Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, H.P,. on 06.02.2018. The defendant intentionally and wilfully did not implead the plaintiffs as the party in the aforesaid litigation and had got decided the same in his favour in the absence of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff came to know regarding the wrong entries with respect to the deletion of Bartandari rights in December, 2020, when the defendant threatened the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the suit land. Therefore, the suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant seeking decree of declaration in their favour and against the defendant. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant by raising preliminary objections with respect to the maintainability, cause of action and locus standi etc. On merits, it was averred that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable as the same had been instituted at the instigation and in connivance with their brothers since both the plaintiffs were residing in their matrimonial houses at Chowki Kankari and Makrana villages, respectively. 5 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) 5. It is the case of the defendants that the same and similar plea was taken by the brothers of the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit, which was instituted by him and the plea as raised by them stood already dismissed. It has further been averred that the brothers of the plaintiffs regularly violated the judgment and thereafter, execution thereof is also pending against them. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit has been intentionally filed against the defendant just to take the benefit of one paper entry. 6. It is the case of the defendant that prior to the institution of the present suit, the defendant had filed Civil Suit No. 83 of 2012, titled Virender Mohan Vs. Amar Singh, before the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Hamirpur, H.P. against the brothers of the plaintiffs and vide order dated 27.07.2016, the said Civil Suit was partly decreed by the learned Court and all the brothers of the plaintiffs were restrained from raising construction, changing the nature and interference by way of digging and cutting trees in any manner over the suit land. It has been averred that the said order was assailed by the brothers of the plaintiffs before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. by filing an appeal, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.04.2019. It was averred that the suit land was allotted to the deceased-father of the defendant and now the suit land, after the 6 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) death of his father, is in his possession and Civil Suit No. 266 of 2004, vide order dated 01.09.2008, was decided in a legal manner. Therefore, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit as filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners. 7. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the issuance of injunction order against the defendant. It was prayed in the application that the defendant be restrained through temporary injunction from obstructing the applicants/plaintiffs from using the suit land as a courtyard of their house by exercising their Bartandari rights and from obstructing them from worshipping in the temple of Bawa-Sidh-Chano situated over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. 8. The said application filed by the plaintiffs was duly contested by the defendant/respondent by filing a reply, whereby all the averments as made in the application were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the application. 9. Learned Civil Judge, Court No. 4, Hamirpur, vide order dated 08.03.2021, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) 10. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein preferred an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the Court of learned District Judge, Hamirpur, on 07.04.2021. The learned District Judge, Hamirpur, vide its judgment dated 23.09.2021, dismissed the appeal as preferred by the plaintiffs and affirmed the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. 11. Still feeling dissatisfied, plaintiffs/petitioners has approached this Court by instituting the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. It is contended by Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Ms. Srishti Negi, Advocate, that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Courts below are based on wrong and erroneous findings and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. She submits that the learned Courts below have erred by declining the prayer of injunction in favour of the petitioners and against the defendant. She further submits that after accepting the present petition, the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, deserves to be allowed. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has defended the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 8 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) Courts below. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Courts below after appreciating the pleadings as well as documents placed on record, has rightly declined the relief of injunction to the plaintiffs. He further submitted that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment and order as passed by learned Courts below. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file. 15. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the residents of Village Har and they have their house over Khasra No. 464 since the time of their ancestors. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that there is temple of Bawa-Sidh- Chano existing over the suit land since the time immemorial. The plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the locality are worshipping in the same temple. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was kept in the reserve pool for exercising Bartandari rights as per their choice. That the defendant is a very clever person and in absence and without their knowledge, he got deleted the entries of Bartandari from the column of possession in the revenue record. The said deletion was got done in collusion with the Revenue officials by showing him owner in 9 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) possession of the same. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant is not in possession over the suit land in any capacity. 16. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that in the previous round of litigation a Civil Suit No. 83 of 2012, was instituted by the present defendant against the brothers of the plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed on 27.07.2016 and all the brothers of the plaintiffs were restrained from raising construction, changing the nature and creating interference by way of digging and cutting of trees in any manner over the suit land. It is contended by the respondent that the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, Hamirpur, dated 27.07.2016, was assailed by filing a Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2016, which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 30.04.2019. It is the case of the defendant that in Civil Suit No. 266 of 2004, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), vide its judgment dated 01.09.2008, granted permanent prohibitory injunction by restraining the defendants/State from dispossessing the present defendant, save and except, in accordance with law. It is the case of the defendant that he is in possession of the suit land and the said fact is evident from the findings as returned by the learned Courts including the Civil Courts. 10 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) 17. The perusal of the judgments passed in Civil Suit No. 266 of 2004 and in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2012, which were filed by the defendant reveals that it is the defendant, who is in possession over the suit land. The findings as returned in the previous round of litigation, have categorically held that it is the defendant, who is in possession of the suit land. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that in order to defeat the right of the defendant, whereby the suit was instituted by the present defendant against the brothers of the plaintiffs, now the present plaintiffs, who are the real sisters of the said persons, have instituted the suit, just to harass the defendant in an uncalled for litigation. 19. Record reveals that the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is valid and correct. In the previous round of litigation, i.e. in Civil Suit No. 83 of 2012, brothers of the plaintiffs were restrained by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. 3, vide order dated 27.07.2016, from raising construction, changing the nature and causing interference by way of digging and cutting trees in any manner. Though, the said order was assailed before the learned First Appellate Court, by filing a Civil Appeal No. 60 of 2016, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.04.2019. 11 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) Even in the Civil Suit bearing No. 266 of 2004, learned Civil Judge, Court No. IV, Hamirpur, H.P had granted injunction to the present defendant against the State. 20. In light of the findings as returned by the two different Courts below, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is the defendant who is in possession of the suit land. In order to get the discretionary relief of injunction, the plaintiffs were required to prove the possession over the suit land and in view of the findings and orders as passed by the learned Civil Courts, it is the defendant, who is in possession. 21. The plaintiffs, in order to obtain the discretionary and equitable relief of injunction, have to pass the triplicate tests of prima face case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The plaintiffs have failed to show that they have got a prima facie case in their favour, in view of the order as passed by the learned Courts, especially, in Civil Suit No. 266 of 2004 and Civil Suit No. 83 of 2012. It is the defendant, who has got prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience also lies in his favour and in case, injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant shall suffer huge irreparable loss. 12 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) 22. The Courts below have concurrently and rightly passed the impugned judgments and orders and this Court does not find any illegality or perversity or jurisdictional error in the same. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its various decisions, has held that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate Courts or Tribunals, but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. It has been held that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and not to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, much less errors of law. 24. The power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the Courts below function within the limits of their authority or jurisdiction. The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, over the last 50 years, it has consistently been observed that the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot 13 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) be exercised by interfering with findings of fact or by setting aside the judgments of the courts below on merits. 25. Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2226 of 2010, titled State of Haryana & others vs. Manoj Kumar, decided on 09.03.2010 has held as follow:-. “23. More than half a century ago, the Constitution Bench of this court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction. 24. This court placed reliance on Nagendra Nath's case in a subsequent judgment in Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu AIR 1963 SC 1895. The court observed that jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. 25. This court had an occasion to examine this aspect of thematter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 . The court observed as under:- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. for this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision." 14 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) 26. This court again clearly reiterated the legal position in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576. The court again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 27. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and reappreciating it. 28. In Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 this court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits. 29. This court over 50 years has been consistently observing that limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot be exercised by interfering with the findings of fact and set aside the judgments of the courts below on merit.” 26. To the similar extent, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3072 of 2022, titled as Ibrat Faizan vs. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, decided on 13.05.2022 has held as follows: “14. In view of the above, in the present case, the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58 (1) (a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the 15 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised. 14.1 The scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution has been explained by this Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97, which has been consistently followed by this Court (see the recent decision of this Court in the case of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29). Therefore, while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the National Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 27. Learned Courts below have rightly decided the case in hand and there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment/order passed by them. 28. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 29. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made herein-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here- in-above, which are only 16 ( 2026:HHC:23688 ) for the purpose of the instant petition. Records, if any, be sent back henceforth. (Romesh Verma) Judge 22nd June, 2026 (sushma)