IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 129 of 2024 Date of decision : 31.03.2026. Inder Singh (since deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioners. Versus Neem Chand & another ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Ms.Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. R. K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Advocate. ________________________________________ Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the judgment dated 08.12.2023, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioners/defendants under the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C has been ordered to be dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Court No.(II), Shimla dated 14.03.2023 has been a<rmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents/plainti=s have >led a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching, raising any construction over the suit land comprised in khasra No. 1053 measuring 00-00-73 hectares in khata khatauni No. 75/81 as per 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- jamabandi for the year 2014-15 of Mohal Chhakrayal, Tehsil Shimla Rural, District Shimla ( hereinafter referred to as the suit land). 3. It is averred in the plaint that the plainti=, as per the family arrangement, is in exclusive possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 1053, though it has been wrongly and mistakenly mentioned that the proforma defendant, namely Het Ram, is in possession thereof. It is further averred that the plainti= alongwith proforma defendants shall take steps to get corrected wrong revenue entries pertaining to khasra Nos. 1053 and 1054 according to law. The defendants are the strangers to the suit land and they have got no title or authority to interfere either in ownership or possession of the plainti=. Therefore, the decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought against the defendants restraining them from encroaching upon and raising any kind of construction or structure over the suit land and interfere in any manner in the ownership and possession of the plainti=. Further it was prayed that in case, during the pendency of the trial, it is found that defendants have raised construction over the suit land, then by way of mandatory injunction, the said structure should be removed or demolished. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability, estoppel, suppression of material facts. It was asserted that the plainti= is not -3- the owner of Khasra No.1053. It was further averred that the suit land is in the ownership of Mohan Singh son of Sh. Jai Singh, who has not been made party in the suit. During the settlement operation, the land of Mohan Singh had decreased, therefore, he >led an application for correction of the revenue entries with regard to Khasra Nos. 1033,1053 and 1051, which were under the ownership of Mohan Singh but were wrongly shown in the ownership of other persons. The defendants denied raising any construction over any part of the suit land. 5. The plainti= >led an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C and the same was duly contested by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 14.03.2023, allowed the application and defendants No. 1 and 2 were restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the applicant and proforma respondent over the suit land comprised in khasra No. 1053 measuring 00-00-73 hectares in khata khatauni No. 75/81 as per jamabandi for the year 2014-15 of Mohal Chhakrayal, Tehsil Shimla, H.P. till the >nal disposal of the main suit. 6. Feeling dissatis>ed, the defendant/present petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge(I), Shimla on 06.04.2023. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and the >ndings as returned by the learned trial Court were a<rmed. -4- 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case >le. 8. The perusal of the case >le reveals that as per the revenue record which has been placed on record, the suit land comprised of Khasra No. 1053 is recorded in the ownership of the plainti=/respondent alongwith the other co-sharers. Even the defence of the defendants/present petitioners is that they are stranger to the suit land and that they are not doing anything over the suit land. The presumption of truth is attached with the revenue record which reveals that suit land is owned by the plainti=/respondent alongwith the proforma respondents and alongwith the co-sharers and the defendant/petitioner has no right or interest over the same. Therefore, in the absence of any right title or interest, the present petitioner/defendant cannot be permitted to raise construction over the suit land which shall be detrimental to the rights of the plainti=. 9. The revenue record prima facie proves the title of the plainti=, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly granted injunction in favour of the applicant and against the defendant and the said >ndings have been rightly a<rmed by the First Appellate Court. 10. In the copy of jamabandi comprised of Khasra No. 1053, the respondent/plainti= is shown one of the co-owners, though in the -5- column of possession, the name of Het Ram proforma defendant is being reDected but in order to prove its title, the said revenue record carries presumption of truth and admittedly the same has not been controverted by the other side. 11. The learned trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court after duly appreciating the entire material placed on record and examining the case >le have rightly decided the case in hand and have granted injunction in favour of the plainti=. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below. Even otherwise the scope of interference while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. 12. As per the revenue record placed on record pertaining to the suit land, i.e., Khasra No. 1053, the respondent/plainti=, Neem Chand, is shown as one of the co-owners of the suit property. However, in the column of possession, the name of Het Ram, proforma defendant, is reDected. The said revenue record carries a presumption of truth as admittedly, the same has not been controverted by the other side. 13. The learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, after duly appreciating the controversy in question and examining the material available on record, have rightly concluded that the respondent/ plainti= is entitled to the grant of injunction. -6- 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S GARMENT CRAFT Vs. PRAKASH CHAND GOEL, (2022) 4 SCC 181, decided on 11.01.2024, has held that the High Court while exercising Supervisory Jurisdiction will not act as a Court of First Appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence on facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of )rst appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal +aw when the )nal )nding is justi)ed or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or +agrant abuse,1Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the )nding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of -7- power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and +agrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the )ndings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the )nding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.” 15. Since both the Courts have concurrently held the plainti= to be entitled to the grant of injunction, this Court >nds no reason to take a di=erent view, particularly in the absence of any perversity or error in the impugned judgment. 16. The present petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) 31st March, 2026 Judge (Veena)