IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 173 of 2025. Decided on : 29 th May, 2025. Brij Lal ...Petitioner. Versus Jagdish Chand ....Respondent. Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. B.L. Soni and Mr. Nitin Soni, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Respondent is served and represented by Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. 2. Heard. 3. The impugned order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kangra on 19.02.2025 to decide an application of the petitioner/plaintiff filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which a prayer was made to remove the construction allegedly raised by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent/defendant in violation of status quo order dated 13.7.2023. 3. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the prayer made in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the petitioner/plaintiff was declined only on the ground that he had earlier approached the same Court for grant of police assistance as also for appointment of Local Commissioner. According to learned trial Court, in view of the orders earlier passed by the Court by allowing the police help and also appointing Local Commissioner, the petitioner/plaintiff had already exhausted the remedies. The relief sought in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner/plaintiff has been considered as unnecessary, whereby alleged multiplicity of proceedings would be created. 4. In my considered view, the impugned order cannot be sustained only for the reason that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with law. The learned trial Court was required to decide the plea raised by the petitioner on merits. It is more than settled that reasons are required to be mandatorily 3 recorded in every judicial order, however, the learned trial Court has failed to meet this legal obligation. 5. In result, the petition is allowed. Order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Case No. 451 of 2024 is set aside with direction to the learned trial Court to decide the application of the petitioner/plaintiff filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure afresh strictly in accordance with law. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 29th May, 2025. (jai)