1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.231 of 2025 Date of Decision : .08.04.2026 Dr. Francina ...Petitioner Versus Praveen Kumar ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Aman Sood, Advocate with Ms. Aarzu, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Dhiman Advocate with Ms. Sakshi, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the judgment as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Judge, Mandi dated 28.03.2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present respondent was allowed and the order as passed by the learned trial Court was set-aside 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plainti//petitioner 1led a suit for declaration under Section 34 and partition and injunction against the present respondent, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 who is her husband. It was prayed that the plainti/ be declared the joint owner of the suit land and the building, having an equal share therein, and that a decree of declaration to this e/ect be passed in her favour. Further it was prayed that the suit land may be partitioned by meets and bounds qua the respective shares of the parties with further prayer that decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be passed in favour of the plainti/ and against the defendant. 3. Along with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C was also 1led by the plainti/. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant/respondent by raising various preliminary objections, on merits the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit. Similarly, the defendant/respondent contested the application 1led by the petitioner under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C and all the averments and allegations as made in the application were refuted. 5. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 25.09.2024, allowed the application to the extent that present respondent was restrained from alienating or creating any charge over the suit land without the permission of the Court. 3 6. The defendant feeling dissatis1ed preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge on 8.11.2024. The First Appellate Court accepted the appeal preferred by the defendant and dismissed the application 1led by the plainti/. 7. That feeling dissatis1ed, the plainti//petitioner has approached this Court by 1ling the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the order of status quo is passed and the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the case of the petitioner, he shall be satis1ed with the said order. 8. To his submissions, Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, has no objection on instructions received from his client. He submits that the learned trial Court may be directed to expedite the suit and till then, both the parties shall maintain status quo qua nature, possession and alienation of the suit property. 9. Consequently without adjudicating and touching the merits of the case, it is ordered that the learned trial Court shall expedite the suit and shall decide the same within a period of eight months from today. Till then both the parties are 4 directed to maintain status quo qua nature, possession and alienation of the suit land. 10. It is made clear that none of the parties shall deviate and obviate from this order failing which the provisions of the contempt of the Court Act shall be made applicable against the erring party. 11. With these observations, the present petition is disposed o/. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed o/. (Romesh Verma), Judge 06.04.2026 (veena)