IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 482 of 2024. Decided on: 09.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Chander Mohan ……….. petitioner Versus Prem Prakash ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. in case No. 13-S/14 of 2023 title Prem Parkash vs. Chander Mohan, whereby he learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. has set aside order dated 27.05.2023, passed in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. in CMA No. 95-6 of 2022 in Civil Suit No. 84-1 of 2022 titled “Chander Mohan vs. Prem Prakash and another”. 2. Heard counsels for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The present petitioner is a plaintiff before the trial Court. Qua three Khasra numbers, i.e., 119, 120 and 121 (suit land). The petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit, wherein an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC had been preferred by the present petitioner/plaintiff. Exclusive ownership qua the suit land was being claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff. On Khasra No. 119, it is alleged that the petitioner/plaintiff had planted an apple orchard. In so far as Khasra No. 120 is concerned, therein it was alleged that a residential house has been raised by the petitioner/plaintiff and with respect to Khasra No. 121 it alleged that the same is being used as a parking space for parking vehicles. 4. The aforesaid contentions raised are categorically denied by the present respondent. The respondent alleges that during the life time of the father of the parties (late Sh. Beli Ram), an oral settlement had taken place, as a result whereof, he had been put in possession of the suit land, i.e., Khasra Nos. 119, 120 and 121, whereupon he alleges to having planted an orchard and built a residential house. 5. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court while considering the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC placed reliance on the jamabandi for the year 2019-20, wherein the respondent is shown to be in settled possession of the suit land. The other previous revenue record 3 placed on record depicts the petitioner/plaintiff as a co-sharer of the suit land. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the trial Court granted an order of status quo qua nature, character and possession of the suit land, till final disposal of the suit. 6. The interim order was passed by the trial court on 27.05.2023. Feeling aggrieved of the same, an appeal was preferred against the same by the present respondent. The same was instituted on 24.06.2023 and finally decided on 12.03.2024. During the interregnum, while the appeal was being considered by the first Appellate Court, heavy rains occurred in the month of July, 2023, as a result whereof, huge accumulation of debris had taken place on the suit land. 7. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the Patwari, patwar circle Chopal had visited the site on 16.07.2023 and prepared a spot inspection report. Other than the aforesaid, the present Gram Panchayat had also issued a necessary certificate after spot inspection. Since a status quo qua nature and possession of the suit land had been ordered by the trial Court, therefore, great difficulty was being faced by the respondent in enjoyment of the suit land and on account of the said order, debris lying on the suit land could not be removed to protect the building of the respondent. 4 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the first Appellate Court was of the view that based on the revenue record placed on record, which carries with it a presumption of truth prima-facie there existed no case in favour of the present petitioner for grant of interim protection. Balance of convenience was also found to lay in favour of the present respondent. The accumulation of the debris and non removal of the same, it was felt by the first Appellate Court, would cause grave irreparable loss to the present respondent. 9. Suffice it to state that an appeal preferred against an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC is an appeal of principle. The grounds for interference in the same have been dealt with in the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., decided on 26.04.1990, the relevant extract is reproduced as under:- “…...14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reasses the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reasonably possible on the 5 material. The appellate Court would normally not with justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial Court’s exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadker, J.in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph. (SCR 721). ….These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘…. the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case.” 10. The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 11. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the 6 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge September 9, 2025 Susheel