IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 709 of 2025 Date of decision : 27.04.2026 Raksha Devi ...Petitioner. Versus Mukesh Kumar & others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No.4 proceeded against ex-parte. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition arises out of the order dated 24.10.2025 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Amb, District Una, H.P., whereby the objections as filed by the JD No.3/petitioner has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The record reveals that on 05.09.2014, as compromise has been effected between the parties, following order was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amb, District Una, H.P.: “The case is fixed today for arguments. However, Parties have allegedly compromised the matter with the intervention of their respective counsel. Statement of GPA of the plaintiff as well as defendant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 No.3, duly identified by their respective counsel, recorded regarding compromise. Ld counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 also agreed upon statement of GPA of the plaintiff by separate statement. Heard. Keeping in view statement of parties and Ld counsel for defendants No.1 and 2, plaintiffs shall not claim any right, title or interest in abadi along with courtyard existing upon land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2642 and 2666, situated at Up Mohal Ram Nagar Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, H.P. Plaintiffs jointly are entitled for ½ share and defendants jointly are entitled for remaining ½ share upon abadi shown with marks ABCDEFA outlined green in colour in the site plan Ex.PW2/A existing upon land comprised in Khewat No. 187 min, Khatoni No. 473 min, Khasra No.2667, situated at Up Mohal Ram Nagar, Nakroh, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, H.P. Present suit is accordingly disposed. Preliminary decree for partition of abadi existing upon land comprised in Khasra No.2667 above be accordingly passed. Case file, after due completion, be consigned to records.” 3. After the passing of the preliminary decree for the partition amongst the parties, the plaintiff filed an application for drawing final decree in terms of the compromise decree dated 5.9.2014. 4. In the said application, learned trial Court appointed a Local Commissioner, Sh. Santosh Kumar (retired Naib Tehsildar), who vide its report dated 09.05.2016 prepared the site plan, as per which in Kurrah No. 1, Shiv Kumar and Sh. Raj Kumar both sons of Sh. Roshan Lal were shown and in Kurrah No.2 Sh. Mukesh Kumar and Sh. Anil Kumar, S/O Jasbir Singh have been shown. 3 5. The petitioner has filed objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, which were duly replied by the present respondents. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 24.10.2025 dismissed the objection as preferred by the present petitioner. 6. The precise contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the compromise has been effected between the parties on 05.09.2014 by passing the preliminary decree for partition, in that event, it has to be implemented in its letter and spirit and the parties are bound by the same. 7. He submits that when the local commissioner visited the spot and prepared the site plan then in Kurrah No.1 only the names of Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Raj Kumar have been shown whereas the name of Smt. Raksha Devi has been omitted. He is only aggrieved by such omission of the name of Smt. Raksha Devi. He submits that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the compromise decree on account of which preliminary decree has been framed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Piyush Dhanotia, Advocate, for the respondents has defended the impugned order and he submits that there is no infirmity in the order. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. 4 9. He further submits that the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the scope of interference in the present proceedings is very limited and narrow. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. 11. Admittedly, on the basis of the compromise effected between the respective parties, the preliminary decree was framed and the Local Commissioner went on the spot for finalizing the same and drawing the final decree. However, the site plan, which has been appended with the petition, reveals that name of Smt. Raksha Devi is missing and only the name of Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Raj Kumar has been shown in the said list. 12. Prima facie and on the face of it, the said omission is bad in the eyes of law. Though, the learned trial Court has agreed to the contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has observed that the said mistake can be rectified by directing the revenue authorities to prepare the new Kurrah. However, no such directions were issued after accepting the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Therefore, the present petition is partly accepted only on the ground that the name of Smt. Raksha Devi may also 5 be shown in the Kurrah alongwith Sh. Shiv Kumar and Sh. Raj Kumar. 14. However, it is made clear that this observation and arrangement is made subject to final outcome of the RSA No. 343 of 2011, which is pending before this Court by incorporating the name of Smt. Raksha Devi. The rights of the parties have not determined in the present proceedings and the same shall be subject to final outcome of the RSA. Ordered accordingly. 15. In view of the above, the present petition stands disposed of, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge April 27, 2026 (Nisha)