2025:HHC:34110 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.181 of 2023 Decided on: 08.10.2025 Gopal Singh & others … Petitioners Versus Ram Lal & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vijay Bir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. No notice issued to respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the Ld. Addnl. District Judge -1, Kangra at Dharamshala H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No 02- N/XIV/2021, whereby the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court has been quashed and set aside and the petitioners/defendants have been allowed to use the path only for taking the bulls instead of permitting them to use already existing foot path in the suit land for cultivation purposes and to look after their field and crops, may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the application of the petitioners/defendants may kindly be ordered to be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34110 also carefully gone through the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondents herein filed a suit against the petitioners herein for permanent injunction, which is pending adjudication. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the plaintiffs, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide Annexure P-5, dated 08.02.2021, by returning the following findings:- “10. In view of the above observations, the applicant does not have prima facie case in his favour. The respondents have apparently got customary right of passage through the suit land to the extent recorded in Wazib Ul Arz of the concerned mohal. As such, in case the respondents used the suit land strictly in accordance with the rights recorded in Wazib Ul Arz, no legal injury can be caused to the applicant. On the other hand, if the respondents are restrained absolutely from using the suit land and are not permitted to use the suit land as per the rights recorded in Wazib-Ul-Arz, it may render his land barren and loss likely to be caused by injunction would be much more than the loss likely to be caused to the applicant in case injunction is refused. Since there is nothing on record to show that the respondents were acting in violation of the rights recorded in Wazib-Ul-Arz, it cannot be said that the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable loss and legal injury in case temporary injunction as sought for is withheld. 3 2025:HHC:34110 11. Hence, in view of the above observations, application filed by the applicant/plaintiff is dismissed being devoid of merits. However, it is hereby clarified that this order shall not be deemed as authorizing the respondents to cause interference in the suit land by removing its fencing or otherwise, except and to the extent only of the rights recorded in Wazib-Ul-Arz. It is further clarified that the respondents do not have absolute right to use the suit land as passage for all purposes and it is only the right of passage as recorded in the Wazib-Ul-Arz for the purpose of cultivation only which may be recognized. Accordingly, the interim order dated 05.10.2020 stands vacated. However, the observations made here-in-above shall be strictly construed for the disposal of this application and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the main suit. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. It be tagged with the main case.” 4. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and the learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal in the following terms:- “19. In view of my findings returned on point No. 1, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the defendants are restrained from creating any passage through the suit land, however, it is made clear that this order, in no manner, shall restrict or take away the right of taking their bulls by the defendants through the suit land for cultivation purposes. They shall continue to exercise their such rights as recorded in Wajib-ul-Arz. Memo of costs be prepared 4 2025:HHC:34110 accordingly.” 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the petitioners stand restrained from using the suit land for any purpose whatsoever, whereas they have a right to have ingress and egress therefrom for agricultural purpose in terms of their rights recorded in the Wajib-ul-Arz. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that this right of the petitioners has not been restricted or restrained in any manner and all that the learned Appellate Court has stated is that the defendants are restrained from creating any passage through the suit land. 7. In light of the respective contentions and stand of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order under challenge calls for no interference except the clarification that the petitioners herein are not restrained from using the suit land in exercise of their rights as are recorded in the Wajib-ul-Arz, but obviously, they cannot create any passage through the suit land. 8. With this clarification, the petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 08, 2025 (Rishi)