IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.485 of 2024 Reserved on: 25.03.2026 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Savitri Devi ….Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Het Ram, Advocate, For the respondent: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms.Aditi Rana, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge The present petition arises out of order dated 04.05.2024, as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Hamirpur, H.P., whereby the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 151 of CPC, redirecting SHO, Police Station, Hamirpur, H.P. for implementation of injunction order dated 19.07.2022 has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on 15.11.2021. It was averred that plaintiff has right of way by virtue of usage and custom, and also under Wajib-ul-arj of the Village for agricultural purpose to reach her agricultural holding comprising Khata No.7. 2 Khatoni No.7, Khasra Nos.10, 154, 177, 181, 528 and Khata No.8, Khatauni No.8, Khasra Nos.11, 139, 155, 176 and 674, situated in Tika Matahni Mouza Bajuri Tehsil and District Hamirpur (HP) as per jamabandi for the year 2011-12 through the edges/mainds/beeds of land of the defendant, comprising Khata No.5min, khatoni No.5 min, Khasra No.254 situate in Tika Matahni, Mouza Bajuri Tehsil and District Hamirpur (HP) as per jamabandi for the year 2011-12. It was averred in the plaint that the land of the plaintiff/petitioner is an agricultural land which is being ploughed, cultivated and harvested since the time of her ancestors, from generation to generation. The edges/mainds/beeds of the land of defendant comprising over Khasra No.254, are being used for ingress and egress of the land of the plaintiff from the land of defendant which is over the suit land. 3. It was further averred that the defendant is a headstrong and shrewd person, after exchanging the land vide mutation No.121 during the year 2016 with the original owner, with the commencement of harvesting season, and in order to obstruct the plaintiffs’ approach, has started threatening by digging, destroying and damaging the edges/mainds of Khasra No.254 for blocking the user of said edges/mainds/beeds. 3 Therefore, the suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff has a right of way by virtue of usage and custom as well as under Wajb-ul-arz of the village for agricultural purposes. 4. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections regarding locus standi, maintainability, estoppel, non-joinder etc. On merits, it was averred in the written statement that the plaintiff has got no right of passage. The defendant has constructed abadi and a cow- shed since 2016, and the brother of the defendant has also constructed his separate abadi. The plaintiff cannot claim any passage through Khasra No.254, which is the abadi, courtyard and cow-shed of the defendant. The plaintiff has access to her land in dispute from another land, and the present suit has been filed in order to harass the defendant unnecessarily. The house of the plaintiff is on the border and adjoining to her abadi, there is a government land in Tika Gopal Nagar, which is in her possession and village passage goes through it. The averments as made in the plaint were specifically refuted and it was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be rejected. 5. The plaintiff/petitioner along with the suit, filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of interim injunction. In the application, it was prayed that the 4 defendant/respondent be restrained through his agents, servants, assignees from creating any obstruction and hindrance in the user of the beed/edges/mainds of the land of the defendant comprised in Khasra No.254, situated in Tika Matahni, Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. 6. The said application was duly contested by the defendant/respondent. 7. Learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur, vide its order dated 19.07.2022, allowed the application by directing the parties to maintain status-quo qua nature, possession and any right over the suit land till the disposal of the main suit. It was ordered that until and unless the rights of the parties are not decided, the parties shall maintain status quo at the spot and preserve the nature of the suit land. 8. After the passing of the order of status quo, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC for issuance of appropriate directions to the SHO, Police Station, Hamirpur, to implement the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur. As per the petitioner, after the passing of the order of status quo, the defendant/respondent along with his wife Smt. Reeta Devi started fixing temporary tree branch fencing over the maind of the 5 agricultural passage by temporarily obstructing the same and by digging it so as to change its nature, with an intention to violate the order, as passed by the trial Court. It was averred that the said act of the defendant is intentional, willful and highly illegal and unwarranted. Therefore, it was prayed that the SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Hamirpur be directed to implement the order of status quo as passed on 19.07.2022. 9. The said application was contested by the present respondent and the allegations of violation of injunction order of status quo were refuted. 10. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 03.02.2023, allowed the said application and the SHO was directed to implement the order dated 19.07.2022 at the spot. It was ordered that the assistance of revenue officials be also provided, if required, along with use of necessary force required under the circumstances at the spot. 11. Pursuant to orders as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur on 03.02.2023, SHO, Police Station, Sadar submitted his report to the learned trial Court by observing that on the orders of the Court, he went on the spot along with Halka Patwari Manoj Kumar. The report was prepared on the spot and it was found that as per revenue record, there is no passage on the 6 suit land and further that the spot has been fenced. The said report has been appended with the present petition at page 120 of the paper book. The statements of the parties, including, Halqua Patwari, Manoj Kumar, present petitioner and respondent are also appended with the petition. 12. Thereafter, again an application under Section 151 of CPC for redirecting the SHO, Police Station Sadar for implementation of orders of injunction dated 19.07.2022 and 03.02.2023 was filed. It was averred in the application that as per report dated 13.02.2023, which the SHO has submitted to the Court, it has been reported that the passage in question has been found to have been closed and obstructed by the respondent. As per the petitioner, from perusal of the report, it appears that he has not been able to implement the injunction order 23.09.2022. Further, it was averred that the SHO after visiting the spot, report the position existing on the spot, so as to seek further orders from the learned trial Court. Therefore, under such circumstances, it is just unfair to implement the order dated 19.07.2022. In the application, which was filed on 2.08.2022, it was prayed that the report of the SHO dated 13.02.2023, be perused and the SHO, Police Station, Hamirpur, be redirected to implement the order 7 dated 19.07.2022 in its letter and spirit by allowing the application in the interest of justice. 13. The said application was duly contested by the present respondent and it was submitted in the reply that the petitioner was in a habit of filing false and frivolous applications. Previously, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking the enforcement, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, second application under Section 151 of CPC was allowed on which the police visited the spot. The question of existence of passage on the spot does not arise and the present application for redirecting the SHO, Police Station Hamirpur is nothing but an abuse of process of law in order to pressurize the present defendant/respondent. The defendant sought dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff. 14. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 04.05.2024 has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 15. Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment and setting aside the said order. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the scope of interference in a petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India 8 in Civil Appeal No.13801 of 2025, titled Shri Digant vs. M/s P.D.T. Trading Co. & others, as under: “22. The scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 fell for consideration before a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. 1 This Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226, though they may be questioned in the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and correcting mere errors. exercised in cases The not for power occasioning may be grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.” 17. Now coming to the factual matrix of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside since the same has not followed the principles of law. It is submitted by learned counsel 9 for the petitioner that once it is a specific case of the plaintiff that order of status quo has been passed by learned trial Court then in all eventualities the said order is required to be implemented and enforced on the spot. He further submitted that the application, which was filed for redirecting the SHO to visit the spot for the enforcement of order of status quo, should have been allowed in order to maintain the majesty of law. 18. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has defended and supported the impugned order as passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.3, Hamirpur on 04.05.2024. He has submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of filing frivolous applications. In the present case also, this is third application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. He submitted that the learned Court below has rightly, after taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case, dismissed the application. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the case file. 20. The precise case as projected by the petitioner/plaintiff before this court is that he filed a suit for declaration on the ground that the plaintiff has a right of way by virtue of usage and custom and also under Wajb-ul-arj of the 10 Village for agricultural purpose from the land of the defendant, comprised over Khasra No.254, situated in situated in Tika Matahni, Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. 21. The case as projected by the plaintiff is that he is using the mainds/edges/beeds of Khasra No.254 owned by the defendant for exercising the agriculture rights for the purpose of ploughing, harvesting and cultivation. The said right is being claimed on the basis of custom and usage as alleged by the plaintiff .The said plea of the plaintiff has been categorically denied by defendant. It is the stand of the defendant that he has constructed his abadi and cow shed since 2016, and the brother of the defendant has also constructed his separate abadi. Therefore, the plaintiff has got no right of passage from the suit land. Further, it is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff cannot claim any passage from Khasra No.254, which is the abadi, courtyard and cow shed of the defendant. In the interim application, which was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo qua nature, possession and any right over the suit land till the disposal of the main suit. It was ordered by the learned trial Court that until and unless the rights of the parties are not decided, it shall be appropriate to maintain status quo at the spot and preserve the 11 nature of the suit land. The order of status quo clearly establishes that the spot position existing on 19.07.2022 was to be maintained by both the parties. 22. In order to carve out a case, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff/petitioner to have proved that before passing of the order of status quo on 19.07.2022, the petitioner/plaintiff was using the mainds/edges/beeds from the suit land i.e. Khasra No.254 and further, it was upon the plaintiff to have proved that, after the passing of the status quo order, the said right of passage has been blocked by the defendant. Neither in the pleadings nor any document has been placed on record to establish the said case by the plaintiff. The application under Section 151 of CPC for enforcement of the order, which was initially filed by the plaintiff, was allowed on 03.02.2023 and the SHO of Police Station concerned was directed to implement the order dated 19.07.2022 at the spot. Learned Civil Judge had directed that the assistance of revenue officials be provided in order to ascertain the spot position. The report of the SHO has been placed on record, which clearly shows that he went to the spot along with Halqua Patwari Manoj Kumar and on the spot, it was found that the suit land has been fenced and as per revenue record, there is no passage over the suit land. The report of the SHO, which in assistance with the 12 revenue official, clinches the entire controversy. It shows that on the spot, there is no such use of passage. Report further clarified that the suit land has been fenced by the present respondent. In order to make out a case, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff/petitioner to prove that the fencing has been done by the respondent, after the passing of the status quo order. 23. On asking this pointed question, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court that, after the passing of the status quo order, the alleged path has been closed by the defendant/respondent. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration on the basis of usage and custom and the same has to be tried and proved, in accordance with law by framing of the issues and leading evidence by the respective parties. Therefore, at this stage, the relief, as sought by the plaintiff/petitioner, cannot be granted, as it will virtually decree the suit of the plaintiff. The order of status quo clearly implies that the existing position on the spot was to be maintained by the respective parties. There is no material on record to establish and prove that, before the passing of the order of status quo, the passage from Khasra No.254 was being used by the plaintiff and that after the passing of the order, the said passage was closed by the defendant/respondent. Therefore, under such circumstances, in the application, which 13 was filed under Section 151 of CPC, no relief could have been granted by the learned trial Court. The plea of custom is a matter of trial and onus to prove the said custom is upon the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is required to prove his assertion and submissions by leading evidence and only thereafter the conclusion can be drawn by learned trial Court in favour of either of the parties. 24. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that, as per the report of the SHO filed in compliance to the Court orders, the suit land is recorded in the name of the respondent. Furthermore, as per revenue records, there was no path recorded over the suit land and the suit land is fenced. Therefore, without touching upon the merits of the case, the trial Court has rightly rejected the miscellaneous application, which was filed under Section 151 of CPC. In the garb of the application, for grant of police assistance, no final relief can be granted to the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order as passed by learned trial Court dated 04.05.2024 does not suffer or illegality. 25. In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant petition being devoid of any merit 14 is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 26. Before parting, it is made clear that any observation made here-in-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 for the purpose of the instant petition. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge 6th April, 2026 (vt)