2025:HHC:8465 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(OS) No.21 of 2024 Decided on: 22.03.2025 __________________________________________________________ Neelkanth Developers ...Appellant Versus Radhe Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. and Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Present appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No.12 of 2023, titled as Neelkanth Developers Vs. Radha Techbuild Pvt. Ltd. & Others, whereby application [OMP No.93 of 2023] for injunction was dismissed. The reasoning as such given by learned Single Judge was that the plaintiff had no agreement with defendants No.5 and 6, who were owners of land and, therefore, they were not privy to the contract 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:8465 - 2 - with defendant No.1. It was accordingly held that in absence of any prima facie arguable case in favour of applicant-plaintiff, defendants No.5 and 6 would be deprived of use of the land to which they were entitled being owners and balance of convenience not being in favour of applicant-plaintiff, the application as such was dismissed. 2. The stand of defendants No.5 and 6 is that sale consideration was not paid to them and defendant No.1 did not acquire any title of land on the basis of the agreement dated 23.11.2019, due to which the injunction was declined. The second agreement of the same date vide which defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the same land to the plaintiff was a forged document. 3. We are of the considered opinion that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, defendants No.5 and 6 thus, could not be prejudiced as their interest has been rightly protected by learned Single Judge. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicant- plaintiff and the defendants thus, could not be put to loss by grant of injunction. 4. It has also come on record that applicant- 2025:HHC:8465 - 3 - plaintiff did not take necessary approval of purchasing the land under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The argument that the money has been paid by the applicant-plaintiff to defendants No.2 to 4 is of no consequence as they were not owner’s of the land in question and the plaintiff shall be duly compensated at the time of final disposal of the suit, if refund is to be ordered. 5. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which would warrant interference in the present appeal. Resultantly, the same is dismissed, in limine. 6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge March 22, 2025 [Bhardwaj]