IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 479 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 Joginder Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Kartar Singh …..Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, For the respondent: Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate. 4._ _______________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi , Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 vide which application for police assistance has been dismissed and order dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 60/24, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under order 47 Rule 1 read with section 114 CPC seeking review of the order dated 25.6.2024 has been dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings appended alongwith . At the very out set it would 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 be appropriate to refer to order dated 8.4.2024 and order dated 4.5.2024. The same are being reproduced as under: 8.4.2024 “List for filing reply on behalf of apearing respondent on 04.05.2024 Heard. Record perused. In order to preserve the suit land, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo over the suit land, till next date of hearing.” 04.05.2024 “Today reply on behalf of appearing respondent has been filed. Copy supplied. List for filing rejoinder, if any and consideration on 14.08.2024. stay order dated 08.04.2024 is extended till further orders.” 3. The present petitioner/plaintiff preferred an application seeking police assistance for alleged infringement dated 19.6.2024 of interim order dated 08.04.2024. The aforesaid application so filed was dismissed on account of the fact that interim order dated 8.4.2024 was not in vogue on 19.06.2024 as according to the trial Court the order dated 8.4.2024 was only “ till next date of hearing”. 4. The aforesaid order dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-8) was assailed by way of a review petition, the review was dismissed vide order dated 2.7.2024 (Annexure P-11) . The reason for rejecting the review of order dated 25.6.2024 was that along with the application filed for seeking police assistance for violation alleged to have been 3 committed on 19.6.2024 order dated 4.5.2024 whereby order dated 8.4.2024 had been extended till further orders had not been appended 5. On 8.4.2024 a status qua order qua the suit land was passed till the next date of hearing. Vide order dated 4.5.2024 the same was extended till further orders. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that impugned order dated 25.6.2024 whereby the trial Court refused to entertain an application for alleged infringement of the interim order dated 8.4.2024 alleged to have been committed on 19.06.2024 was held to be not maintainable by the trial Court as there was no interim order on the latter date was palpably wrong. 6. The same on the face of the record is apparently wrong as interim order dated 8.4.2024 had been extended on 4.5.2024 till further orders. Even otherwise the expression till the next date of hearing “came up for consideration” in CMPM No. 139 of 2016, titled Saber Paper Limited vs. State of H.P. & another, decided on 5.5.2016,wherein it has been held that aforesaid expression referred to an effective hearing wherein there is a proper application of mind by the Court concerned. On 4.5.2024 in the case at hand only pleadings were to be completed. It was therefore not an effective hearing where 4 there was an application of mind. The said order also extended the operation of the interim order dated 8.4.2024 7. Other than the aforesaid impugned order dated 2.7.2024 whereby Review preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record as it does not take into account subsequent order dated 4.5.2024. The ground for rejecting the application for review that order dated 4.5.2024 had not been produced with the application seeking police assistance is highly unjustifiable. The entire record was lying with the trial Court. All that the trial Court had to do was to browse through the same. 8 In view thereof both order are quashed The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for a fresh adjudication on the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking police assistance, parties to appear before the learned trial court on 19.06.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge June 02, 2025 (veena)