2025:HHC:25295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 204 of 2025 Decided on: 30.07.2025 Jeevan Lal … Petitioner Versus Sh. Sanjay Kumar and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anita, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2024 may kindly be set aside after restoring the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 1031/2023 CIS Reg. No. 662/2023 and justice be done.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the civil suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents, the order that was passed by the learned Trial Court on an application preferred by the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25295 petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been interfered with by the learned Appellate Court without any rhyme or reason, which interference is totally unwarranted in the eyes of law. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to order dated 19.09.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court on the said application, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “23. In view of the above discussion, the present application is allowed and the respondents are restrained from interfering in the suit land comprised in Khewat Khatauni no. 459/545, khasra no.3380/3089/2974/655, measuring 190.30 Sqr. Mtrs, situated in Mohal Sain/366/1, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. and are further restrained from raising construction in the land adjoining to the suit land without getting approval from Town and Country planning/Municipal Corporation and are further restrained to raise construction in the land adjoining to the suit land without leaving proper setback on both the sides till the pendency of the suit, Application disposed off accordingly. It be registered separately and be tagged with main case file for record.” 4. Accordingly, he submitted that as the order passed by 3 2025:HHC:25295 the learned Trial court inter alia was only to the effect that the defendants shall not raise any construction in violation of the approval accorded to them for construction by the Town and Country Planning Department and by leaving set-backs on both sides, said order could not have been interfered with by the learned Appellate Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that there is no perversity with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court and whatever construction activity is being carried out by the respondents, is in consonance with the permission granted to them by the statutory authority. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondents and having perused the order passed by the learned Court below, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the direction that was passed by the learned Trial Court in its order dated 19.09.2024, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to have had interfered therewith. All that learned Trial court had directed was that the defendants were to raise the construction after getting approval from the statutory Authority and by leaving set-backs on both sides. No infirmity can be attributed to this order because every person, who 4 2025:HHC:25295 intends to carry out construction, has to abide by the laws which govern the construction activity. 7. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that the respondents otherwise also are not carrying out any construction in violation of the approval accorded to them by the statutory authority, these proceedings are closed by setting aside the order dated 28.03.2025, passed by learned Appellate Court and by observing that the respondents, though may continue to carry out the construction, but the same shall be strictly in consonance with the permission granted in their favour by the statutory authority. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 30, 2025 (narender)