2025:HHC:32268 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 565 of 2023 Decided on : 17.09.2025 Smt. Dev Kala …Petitioner Versus Smt. Nathi Devi …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Ravinder Singh Chandel and Pooja Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this petition may very kindly be allowed and impugned orders Annexure P-5 (07/07/2023) and Annexure P-6 (29/08/2023) passed by Ld. Courts below may very kindly be quashed and set aside and application under O. XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC may kindly be allowed in the interest of law and justice.” 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32268 have also gone through the impugned orders. 3. In terms of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) was dismissed. The Appeal filed by the petitioner under Order 43 of the CPC, also met the same fate. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 4. This petition was listed in this Court on 12.10.2023, on which date no interim was granted to the petitioner. This means that the orders that have been passed by the learned Courts below are in vogue and indeed the petitioner is suffering the said orders for the last more than two years. Further, a perusal of the orders under challenge demonstrates that the reasons which weighed with the learned Courts while not entertaining the prayer of the petitioner was that the petitioner on one hand has already constructed a house over the suit land and was seeking an injunction against the respondent, who happens to be a joint owner of the suit property. 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason as to why the petitioner came to the Court was 3 2025:HHC:32268 that the respondent was carrying out construction occupying the best portion of the land and exceeding her share but this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that both the learned Court below have not concurred with the submissions of the petitioner, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the absence of any perversity being demonstrated by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is observed that whatever construction has been carried out or may be carried out by the respondent, shall be at the risk of the respondent and the same shall abide by the outcome of the Civil Suit and the respondent shall not claim any equity. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 17, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)