2025:HHC:23121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 592 of 2023 Decided on: 17.07.2025 Kamal Kumar … Petitioner Versus Suman Kumari … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanket Sankhyan, Advocate. For the respondent : M/s Tejasvi Sharma and Pankaj Chaudhary, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. The order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal 21/14 of 2022 affirming the order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Learned Senior Civil Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in CMA No. 307/6 of 2021 in Civil Suit No 177/1 of 2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside. b. That the application under section 151 of code of civil procedure may kindly be allowed along with such other orders and appropriate orders or directions in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23121 are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience) filed a civil suit seeking injunction against the petitioner herein inter alia on the ground that she is the owner in possession of the suit land and the petitioner, who is a stranger, is unnecessarily causing interference with the possession of the plaintiff and not allowing her to carry out any construction on the same. In the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, learned Trial Court has directed the petitioner herein not to cause any interference in the construction activity being carried out by the respondent/plaintiff. This order has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court and said orders are under challenge by way of this petition. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders so as to call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Courts below have returned the findings that there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. 4. The foundation of the case of the plaintiff is that the property in issue has been sold to her by its previous owner, whereas as per the petitioner, the previous owner of the property, who happens to be his father and father-in-law of the respondent/ plaintiff, has bequeathed a part of the property in issue in his favour 3 2025:HHC:23121 by way of an Ikrarnama and further being ancestral property, the same could not have been sold by his father to the plaintiff. 5. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff has asserted title on the suit land on the basis of a sale deed, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders. The reasonings assigned therein are borne out from the pleadings on record. There is no perversity in the orders which have been passed in view of the title over the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed but with the observation that whatever construction activity shall be carried out by the plaintiff shall be on her own risk and peril and in case the suit is decided against her, she shall not claim any equity on the basis of orders passed in her favour by the learned Courts below. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 17, 2025 (narender)