2025:HHC:27004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 293 of 2025 Decided on: 11.08.2025 Rajeev Kumar … Petitioner Versus Ashish Kumar and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Notice not issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 24.4.2025 passed by the ld. Additional District Judge-II Kangra, HP may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the order of the ld. Trial court dated 01.11.2023 may kindly be upheld, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the order passed by learned Trial Court in an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been set aside. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27004 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order passed by learned Court below, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court in para-14 of the judgment has categorically mentioned that the plaintiff himself had carried out construction over the joint suit land and so had other co-sharers who were not even party-defendants in the civil suit. It is in this backdrop that the learned Appellate Court set aside the order passed by learned Trial Court by observing that nothing was mentioned in the application etc. as to how the construction of a house by the defendant shall prejudice the rights of the plaintiff. Learned Court also held that a party seeking injunction must approach the Court with clean hands, whereas the plaintiff in the present case had not approached the Court with clean hands as he had not disclosed the factum of construction carried by him and other co-sharers over the joint land. 4. These findings during the course of arguments could not be demonstrated as perverse findings. In this backdrop, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Appellate Court and this petition is accordingly dismissed but with the observation that whatever construction has been carried out or may be carried out by the defendants, will abide by 3 2025:HHC:27004 the outcome of the civil suit and defendants shall not claim any equity. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 11, 2025 (narender)