1 ( 2025:HHC:19832 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.337 of 2025 Date of Decision : 25.06.2025 Shyam Singh and another …… Petitioners Versus Sarjeev Singh ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against impugned judgment dated 18.06.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, in CMA No.3-D/XIV/2025, whereby, interim protection granted vide order dated 28.03.2024, passed by Civil Judge, Court No.1, Dharamshala, District Kangra, in C.M.A. No.279/D/2023, in favour of the present petitioners, has been set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings. 3. The present petitioners were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. The case of the present petitioners before the Trial Court was that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:19832 ) suit land is joint and, therefore, the respondent be restrained from raising any construction upon the suit land. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2024, in order to preserve the suit property till the disposal of the suit, passed status quo order. Accordingly, the parties to the lis were directed to maintain status quo qua nature, construction and possession over the suit land. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the same, an appeal was preferred by the present respondent. In appeal, it was pointed out that the suit land is a huge chunk of land, approximately measuring 22 Kanals and 17 Marlas. The share of the present petitioners therein is being 6 Marlas. The respondent herein claimed to be a co-owner in the suit land to the extent of 00-10-99 hectares. A portion of land owned and possessed by the respondent in the suit land is stated to be denoted by Khasra No.9. Thereupon, it is stated that boundary of the same has been constructed since, 2017 by spending approximately Rupees 8 lacs. Besides the aforesaid, on the same, a house is being raised on 1800 square feet of land, on which, Rupees 12 lacs stands spent. 5. Besides the aforesaid, it has been pointed out that the other co-owners have raised construction over their respective shares. In fact, one of the co-owner has raised a building wherein he is running B.Ed. College in the name and style of Awasthi B.Ed. College. Other than the aforesaid, the other co-owners have also raised construction of shops on Khasra No.7. One of the co-owner, namely Rajiv has raised a commercial building on Khasra No.10 along-with the present petitioners. It is stated that the construction so raised were never objected to by the present petitioners. It has further been 3 ( 2025:HHC:19832 ) pointed out that the total entitlement of the present respondent is 11.983 square feet and he is only raising construction over 1800 square feet. There is no question of any ouster of a co-owner, i.e. present petitioners by the respondent. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the First Appellate Court set aside the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Trial Court. 7. The present petitioners are recorded in possession over Khasra No.10 along with others. Similarly, the respondent is recorded in possession over Khasra No.9. The entitlement of the present petitioners is 6 Marlas only in the suit land. His entitlement is over khasra No.10 which is adjacent to road side and having more than 50 to 60 meters of vacant front portion. 8. By raising construction, the respondent is not ousting any co- owner. The construction being raised by the respondent is on a lessor chunk of land as compared to his entitlement in the suit land. No objection was ever raised by the present petitioners when other co-owners were raising construction, rather from the same, it is evident that the co-owners are in settled possession. 9. 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 4 ( 2025:HHC:19832 ) Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 10. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment and herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. 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) June 25, 2025 (KS) Judge