IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.4232 of 2013 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Jagdish & others ...Petitioners Versus Gandhi Ram ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Dhruv Kuthiala and Mr. Uday Kuthiala, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Kajal, Advocate Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition challenge has been made to order dated 03.07.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2-14 of 2012. 2. Petitioners herein are defendants in Civil Suit No.716-1of 2011 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The parties hereafter shall be referred by the status as they hold before the learned trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No.716-1 of 2011 against the defendants for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect 2 of land comprised in Khewat Khatauni Nos.18/18 min, Khasra Nos.382/217 and 385/224, measuring 0-08-00 bighas in village Karangora, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., (for short, “the suit land”). The plaintiff claims himself to be exclusive owner and on that premise has claimed exclusive rights over the suit land. His allegation is that the defendants are strangers to the suit land and are trying to interfere in the same without holding any right to do so. 4. The defendants are contesting the suit. They have filed written statement, alleging, inter alia, that they have a right of passage through the suit land. Such right is being claimed by them as a right of easement. 5. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) for interim injunction during the pendency of suit. The defendants filed reply to such application also. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court decided the said application vide order dated 16.01.2012 by directing both sides to maintain status quo qua nature and possession over the suit land till the disposal of the main suit. 6. The plaintiff assailed the aforesaid order passed by learned trial Court by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule1(r) of the Code, which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2-14 of 2012 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin. The appellate Court vide impugned order dated 03.07.2013 has allowed the appeal of the plaintiff by setting aside the status quo order passed by learned trial Court and has further restrained the defendants from 3 interfering in any manner whatsoever over the suit land till final disposal of the suit. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. While perusing the order dated 16.01.2012, passed by learned trial Court, it appears that the said Court relied upon a bald assertion made by the defendants in their written statement as to existence of right of passage by way of easement over the suit land. Noticeably, order of learned trial Court nowhere reveals that the said Court had found any supporting material to prima facie establish the defence raised by the defendants. 9. On the other hand, what was on record was the jamabandi of the suit land in which no such right was recorded. As per such document, the plaintiff was shown exclusive owner-in-possession of the suit land. 10. Relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. v. Praveen Kumar Singh, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1474, learned appellate Court observed that the status quo order passed by learned trial Court without indicating as to what was the real import of passing such order, could not be sustained. In addition, learned appellate Court further took notice of the fact that the assertions made by the defendants in the written statement had no prima facie support and in such circumstances, the recorded right of the plaintiff could not be easily interfered with. 4 11. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has drawn my attention to certain documents placed on record along with rejoinder filed to this petition and on its basis has submitted that the prima facie right of defendants of passage through the suit land is made out. The contention, so raised, needs to be rejected for the reasons, firstly, no such document was either before learned trial Court or the appellate Court and on the basis of such documents no fault can be found in the orders passed by the appellate Court. Secondly, even perusal of these documents do not prima facie attach credence to the stand of the defendants. The documents so relied upon on behalf of the defendants before this Court are in the shape of version of one of the ward members of the Panchyat without there being any further material to justify such stand. 12. In result, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 03.07.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1-14 of 2012. 13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with direction to the parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 22nd April, 2025. Records of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 24th March, 2025 (vt)