2025:HHC:27281 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.367 of 2020 Decided on: 12.08.2025 Gulzara alias Gurpiara … Petitioner Versus Chaman Lal … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment, Annexure P-6, passed by the Ld. District Judge, Una (H.P.) in Civil Misc. Appeal No.50/2019 titled "Gulzara Vs Chaman Lal" whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Order, Annexure P-5 has been dismissed and the Order, Annexure P-5 has been affirmed, may kindly be set aside and application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure Annexure P-3 filed by the respondent may kindly be ordered to be dismissed, in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that that 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27281 the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as both the learned Courts below erred in not appreciating that in order to obtain discretionary relief, a party has to approach the Court with clean hands. Learned Counsel strenuously argued that there was material concealment of facts by the plaintiff so as to obtain interim orders. Earlier suit filed on the same cause by the plaintiff stood dismissed and so also was the fate of the appeal, but material facts were concealed by the plaintiff from the learned Courts below, which has resulted in the passing of the impugned orders. He accordingly, prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Counsel for the respondent and taking into consideration the fact that the application was decided by the learned Trial Court filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 in the year 2019 and the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the said order on 11.02.2020 and today, we are in the month of August, 2025 and as no stay was granted to the petitioner in these proceedings by this Court, the present petition in fact has lost its efficacy, as the orders passed by the learned Courts below are in force for the last six years. 3 2025:HHC:27281 4. Therefore, in view of the efflux of time, this Court is not adjudicating on the issue on merit, but it should not be construed that this Court has affirmed the orders under challenge on merit. It also goes without saying that the findings returned in said orders shall have no bearing as far as the adjudication of the main suit by the learned Trial Court on merit is concerned. 5. In view of the observation, the petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2025 (Rishi)