IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.172/2025 Date of Decision: 29th July, 2025. Jagdish Chand .....Appellant. Versus Ranbir Singh and another …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocates. For the Respondents: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2023 affirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. III, Hamirpur in Civil Suit No. 147 of 2015. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same way as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.The material facts necessary for the disposal of the present case are that the plaintiff is the co-owner and in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 154 min, Khatauni No. 219 min, Khasra No. 422, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 measuring 10K-19M, situated in Village Deot, P.O. Tal, Tappa Mehalta, Tehsil & District Hamirpur, H.P., as per the Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It is averred that there are other co-sharers over the suit land, and their right, title, and interest are not denied, and the suit is also filed for their benefit. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are strangers to the suit land and have no right, title, or interest over it. It is further alleged that the defendants have started interfering with the suit land by digging, constructing a road, and causing damage to the plaintiff’s house and retaining wall existing over the suit land, forcibly and without any right or title. The plaintiff claims to have repeatedly requested the defendants to desist from such interference and to admit his claim, but to no avail. The cause of action arose in the second week of August 2015 when the defendants allegedly began digging the suit land and constructing a road through it. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from digging, constructing a road, or causing damage to his house and retaining wall, as well as a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit land to its original position if they succeeded in constructing a road during the pendency of the suit. 3 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties, and suppression of material facts. On merits, they admitted having no concern with the suit land and denied interfering with it by digging or constructing a road. They also denied causing any damage to the plaintiff’s house or retaining wall or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Tal, belonging to Village Amned, claimed no connection with the suit land and stated that he had not passed any resolution or provided financial assistance for the alleged road construction in Village Deot. Defendant No. 2, a Ward Panch of G.P. Tal, similarly denied any involvement with the suit land or road construction. It was alleged that the suit against Defendant No. 2 was motivated by his role as a witness in a case against the plaintiff and his brother, intended to pressure him. The defendants asserted that the suit was baseless and filed to harass them, reiterating that they had not interfered with the suit land and that the plaintiff’s claims were unfounded. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 4. No replication to the written statement was filed. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 18.02.2016: 4 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under Section 35-A of CPC as alleged? OPD. 8. Relief. 5. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined three witnesses, including himself as PW-3, and tendered documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 into evidence before closing his case. In rebuttal, the defendants examined themselves as DW-1 and DW-2 and produced documents Ex.DS-1 and Ex.DS-2 before closing their evidence. After hearing both parties, the learned trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2022, decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in the negative, Issues No. 3 and 4 against the defendants, and Issues No. 5 to 7 in the negative, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. 5 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal, reiterating that the trial court's findings were contrary to the evidence on record, based on erroneous assumptions, and legally unsustainable. It was contended that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the cogent evidence adduced by the plaintiff, which conclusively established the defendants' unlawful interference. The plaintiff further assailed the framing of issues as being extraneous to the pleadings and evidence. Despite these submissions, the first appellate court upheld the trial court's decree, leading to the filing of the present second appeal. 7. Heard the counsel for the Appellant, perused the impugned judgment. 8. In the present case, the plaintiff Jagdish Chand along with his witnesses PW-1 Birbal and PW-2 Braham Dass claimed that the defendants had no connection with Khasra No. 422 (the suit land) but had started unauthorized digging in August 2015 using a JCB machine to construct a road, damaging the plaintiff's house and retaining wall. The plaintiff alleged that despite objections, the defendants continued their actions, forcing him to file the suit. However, during cross- examination, weaknesses emerged in the plaintiff's case. PW-1 admitted the suit land was never demarcated in his presence 6 and acknowledged an existing government path near the property, visible in photograph Ex.DX. PW-2, while supporting the plaintiff's claims, conceded he owned no land in Village Deot and confirmed the presence of a government passage adjacent to the suit land. 9. The plaintiff himself failed to produce any demarcation report or expert evidence proving property damage. He could not substantiate his claim about a Panchayat resolution authorizing road construction over the suit land. The defendants, through DW-1 Jeet Ram and DW-2 Ranbir Singh, denied any interference with the suit land. DW-1 stated no resolution was passed for road construction during his tenure as Ward Panch and alleged the suit was filed to pressure him as he was a witness in an unrelated case against the plaintiff. DW- 2, the former Pradhan, similarly denied involvement in any construction activity and confirmed he had no interest in the suit land. 10. The photographic evidence (Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and Ex.DX) showed no signs of fresh excavation or damage to the plaintiff's property, contradicting his claims. The plaintiff failed to provide any demarcation report, spot map or expert assessment to prove identification of any encroachment or damage by the defendants. While the Jamabandi (Ex.P1) and pedigree table 7 (Ex.P2) established the plaintiff's co-ownership of the suit land, the oral testimonies remained uncorroborated by documentary evidence. 11. The trial court correctly applied the fundamental principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case laid down by the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Subimal Kumar Mondal, AIR 1982 Cal 257. The plaintiff's inability to prove through cogent evidence either the breach of any legal obligation by the defendants or the existence of a real as opposed to speculative, threat to his possessory rights proved fatal to his claim for injunctive relief under Sections 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The courts below rightly emphasized that mere pleadings unsupported by reliable evidence cannot form the basis for granting equitable relief. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 29th July, 2025 (Tarun/T.B)