2025:HHC:31839 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.376 of 2025 Decided on: 16.09.2025 Sh. Gurdev Singh … Petitioner Versus Bhupinder Singh … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, with M/s Karan Veer Singh and Ritu Singh, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 25.04.2025, passed by learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the documents appended with the petition as well as the impugned order, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein. 3. The suit that has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent is for possession by way of ejectment and for recovery of Rs.20,000/- per month with effect from August, 2009 till the date of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:31839 ejectment and handing over the vacant possession of the premises on account of illegal usage and occupation. The application filed under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, on the ground that the petitioner had come to know that in order to save himself from the recovery of the aforesaid amount the respondent was intending to transfer his land by way of gift, sale and Tamliqnama in favour of his wife and son. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by returning the following reasoning:- “7. In the present application, & is stated that the applicant came to know from reliable source that respondent in order to save himself front the recovery of amount of 12,20,000/- on account of arrear of rent is going to transfer his land at Adarsh Nagar and by the perusal of the case file the suit is in initial state and respondent has also moved application under Order 7. Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint and the applicant has not furnished any specific affidavit in support of contention and he has not specifically mentioned any source of information from where he came to know that respondent is going to dispose of his property and proof of the fact of transfer of property by respondent is insufficient to order attachment of the property of the respondent and the applicant in the present suit has filed recovery of arrear of rent and at this stage, this court has 3 2025:HHC:31839 not come to the conclusion as to how much the rent was fixed by both the parties and there is nothing on record which shows that the respondent from any specific time is in arrear of rent at the rate of 20,000/- per month. So in this circumstance this Court does not find it appropriate to allow the present application as such present application is dismissed. File alter due completion be tagged with main case for record. Let file be listed for consideration on application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for 05.06.2025.” 4. This Court is of the considered view that the reasoning given in the above para of the order calls for no interference. As have been observed by the learned Trial Court also, the application is conspicuously silent as to from where the petitioner gained the information with regard to the alleged sale etc. or disposal of the property by the respondent. In fact, it is evident that filing of the application was nothing, but an endeavour made by the petitioner to pressurize the defendant to hand over the possession of the premises. It is further a matter of record that already an application has been filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by the defendant, which is yet to be adjudicated and this aspect of the matter has also been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application. Otherwise also, as the view taken by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application is 4 2025:HHC:31839 one of the views possible on the basis of material before this Court, there is no occasion for this Court in interfere with the findings so returned under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 1 6 , 2025 (Rishi)