1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.508 of 2022 Date of Decision : 18.05.2026 Om Parkash ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondent Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. dated 20.09.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed and the order, as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh,District Solan, H.P. dated 08.10.2021 was affirmed, whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C was ordered to be dismissed. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the State before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan. In the suit, it has been prayed that decree for declaration to the effect that the eviction order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade Ramshehar, in cases No. 8/2018 and 2/19, titled as State versus Om Prakash with respect to suit land are illegal, null and void. Further decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent/defendant through its agents and servants from dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner from the suit land has also been prayed. 3. The State filed its written statement and the copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 . 4. The suit has been contested by the State by raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, valuation and estoppal etc. The averments and the contentions as made in the plaint have been refuted and denied in the written statement. 5. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C was filed by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The said application was duly resisted by the State and consequently, vide its order dated 08.10.2021, 3 the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan,HP dismissed the application as filed by the applicant/plaintiff. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner/plaintiff approached the learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan by filing an appeal under Section 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and affirmed the order as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan,H.P. 7. During the course of arguments, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the case is fixed for adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. He further submits that the interim order as passed by this Court may be confirmed and the direction may be issued to the learned trial Court to take the trial to its logical end. The said submissions have not been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 8. Consequently, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. is directed to decide the Civil Suit itself finally after hearing the respective parties and till the time the suit is adjudicated and determined by the learned trial Court, interim protection granted by this court on 15.10.2022,whereby both the parties were directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the suit property shall remain in operation. 4 The petition stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma), Judge 18.05.2026 (veena)