2025:HHC:27039 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.564 of 2023 Decided on: 11.08.2025 Smt. Rajni … Petitioner Versus Sh. Narayan Dass & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Guna Nand Verma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. B. R. Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.2 to 5-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “Allow the petition and setting aside the order dated 16- 09-23 passed in Review Petition no-1/23 and order dated 11-04-23 passed in Civil Mise Appeal no-12/2022 by Ld. District Judge Shimla, filed by respondent no-1, whereby, the order of injunction passed in CMA no 81/6 of 2021 in Suit no 81/1 of 2021 and further be pleased to uphold the order passed by Ld. Trial Court in CМА по 81/6 of 2021 in CS no 80/1 of 2021 dated 14-02-22 in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason as to why the review petition was filed before the learned District Judge was that during the pendency of the appeal before the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27039 learned District Judge, land acquisition case bearing No.23 of 2018, which was pending disposal, was withdrawn on 18.07.2022 and this fact could not be brought to the notice of the learned District Judge, which otherwise was material for the decision of the appeal. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having carefully gone through the order under challenge, passed by the learned District Judge, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity therein, as apparently there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Otherwise also, if indeed there is a change in the circumstance, then in terms of the provisions of Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner can always approach the learned Trial Court seeking re-call or modification of the order passed by it by citing the changed circumstance. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this liberty be granted to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, in light of the prayer so made, these proceedings are closed without disturbing the order under challenge, but with the observation that the petitioner, if he is so advised, may approach the learned Trial Court under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is clarified that in case any such application is filed by the petitioner, then it shall be decided by the learned Trial Court confluence by the earlier order passed by it as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 3 2025:HHC:27039 6. The petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 11, 2025 (Rishi)