2025:HHC:32503 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 639 of 2022 Decided on : 18.09.2025 Subhash Chand …Petitioner Versus Smt. Shalu Verma …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Sanjeev Sood and Rahul Gathania, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 29.04.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in CMA No. 128-VI/2021, in Civil Suit No. 108/2021, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner herein, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), was dismissed as well as judgment dated 21.10.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sunder Nagar, District 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:32503 Mandi, H.P, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 24 of 2022, titled Subhash Chand Versus Smt. Shalu Sharma, in terms whereof, an Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learend Trial Court, under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the CPC, was also dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. 3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders, was filed by the petitioner before this Court in the month of December, 2022. While issuing notice to the respondent, no stay was granted by the Court, meaning thereby, that as from the date of the filing of the suit, there is no interim in favour of the petitioner. This petition is also pending adjudication for more than 2 ½ years and in light of the fact that earlier no interim was granted to the petitioner when he approached this Court initially, obviously, this petition has now lost its efficacy. 4. Further, having carefully gone through the order and 3 2025:HHC:32503 judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court, respectively, otherwise also, this Court finds no infirmity therein. Learned Trial Court has assigned reasons as to why interim was not granted to the petitioner. Learned Trial Court has given reference of the earlier litigation between the parties i.e. the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff himself, which was withdrawn as well as the subsequent writ that was filed in the Court. Learned Trial Court has also mentioned that though what was being stated in the plaint was that the defendant has recently constructed a wall in the month of March, 2021, obstructing the passage of the plaintiff, however, prima facie, it could not be said that the said construction was of recent nature, because in the year 2018 also in the writ as well as the representation filed by the petitioner to the Municipal Corporation, the same allegation was made by the Court. 5. Similarly, the learned Appellate Court while upholding the order passed by the learned Trial Court, has reiterated the said facts. It could not be demonstrated before this Court that the findings returned by the learned Courts below were perverse and not borne out from the record. In light 4 2025:HHC:32503 of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that in exercise of power conferred upon it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings returned by the learned Courts below. 6. In view of above discussion, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 18, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)