2025:HHC:33727 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 242 of 2023 Decided on: 26.09.2025 Smt. Urmila Devi … Petitioner Versus Rohit and others .… Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed the impugned order dated 06.03.2023(Annexure P-6) passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge Palampur, District Kangra, P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2- P/XIV/23/2019 Titled as Urmila Devi Versus Rohit & Others may kindly be set aside and quashed whereby the order dated 20.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Ld. Civil Judge Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in CMA No. 207 of 2016 in Civil Suit No. 295 of 2016 was upheld by the ld appellate court with a prayer to allow the application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the present in petitioner in interest of justice and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:33727 fair play. It is further humbly submitted that for any reason if this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the present petition is not maintainable under article 227 of the Constitution of India then in that eventuality the present petition may kindly be treated as a civil revision petition under Section 115 of CPC.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. He is further aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Appellate Court also, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by him under 43(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code was dismissed. 3. When this case was listed before the Court on 23.05.2023, this Court restrained the respondents from alienating the suit property. In light of the fact that the said order is in force till date and besides this, no other interim was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Courts, this petition is disposed of with the direction that whatever construction has been carried out by the respondents or may be carried by them, shall abide by the final decision of the civil suit and the same shall be at their own risk and peril and the respondents shall not claim any equity. 3 2025:HHC:33727 It is further ordered that the respondents shall not alienate the suit land during the pendency of the civil suit. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 26, 2025 (narender)