2025:HHC:16469 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 4 of 2023 Date of decision : 28.5.2025. Durga Dutt ...Petitioner. Versus Surjeet Singh & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. S. M. Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Petitioner assails order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 2022, whereby the order dated 19.4.2022, passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Jogindernagar, District Mandi in CMA No. 352 of 2020 in Civil Suit No. 176/2020, has been set aside and the application of the respondents herein under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has been allowed, restraining the petitioner herein from causing any interference by way of digging or raising construction on the suit land. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Petitioner herein is the defendant in Civil Suit No. 176 of 2020, pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Joginder Nagar. The respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties hereinafter shall be referred by the same status, as they hold before the learned trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs have filed a suit in respect of land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 14/18, Khasra Nos. 10, 11, 24, 25 and 31, Kitas-5, measuring 09-05-08 bighas, situated in Mohal Badehar, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. (for short, the suit land). According to the plaintiffs, the suit land is joint between the plaintiffs, defendant and other co-sharers. Plaintiff has sought to restrain the defendant from raising construction on a portion of the suit land. Noticeably, in para-4 of the plaint, it has specifically been averred that a family arrangement had taken place inter-se the parties and the land on which the defendant was raising construction had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs in family arrangement. The family arrangement is stated to have taken place about thirty years back. -3- 4. The defendant is contesting the suit by filing written statement. The defendant has also admitted that a family arrangement has taken place inter-se co-sharers and in result, the land on which the defendant was raising construction had fallen to his share. The defendant further stated that the other co-sharers namely, Roop Lal and Prem Singh have already raised constructions of their respective houses on the portions allotted to them in family settlement and at that juncture the plaintiffs had not raised any objection. 5. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) with a prayer to pass an interim injunction order against the defendant. Learned trial Court dismissed the application. In appeal, filed by the plaintiffs under Order 43 (1) (r) of the Code, the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat has reversed the order passed by the learned trial Court, hence the instant petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record carefully. -4- 7. As is evident from the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the only ground raised by the plaintiffs is that the portion of the suit land on which the defendant was raising construction had been allotted to them in a family partition thirty years back. It has been submitted that the defendant had no right to raise construction on the land possessed by the plaintiffs unless the partition of the suit land was effected by metes and bound. 8. Learned trial Court rejected the prayer for interim injunction on the ground that the factum of family arrangement having taken place between the co-sharers was not in dispute. In such circumstances, it was for the plaintiffs to reveal that the portion on which the defendant was raising construction had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs. In view of revenue record being silent on this aspect it was for plaintiffs to have brought on record some tangible material to prima-facie establish their contention. 9. Learned Appellate Court though has reversed the order passed by learned trial Court, but I cannot find any reason recorded in the order, for such reversal. What has been noticed in the impugned order are bare facts of -5- the case. How and why the learned Appellate Court did not concur with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is completely missing. 10. In my considered view, the learned trial Court had passed a reasoned order. The reasons recorded by the learned trial Court were borne from the record. The plaint clearly reveals that the plaintiffs were claiming a right on a specific portion of the suit land on the basis of family arrangement. Though, the factum of family arrangement was not denied by the defendant, yet, there were no details about the allotment of plots by way of family arrangement. Once the plaintiffs were alleging exclusive right over a specific portion of the suit land, it was for them to have identified the same. In absence, the learned trial Court was right in declining the relief of interim injunction to the plaintiffs. 11. It can also be seen that the plaintiffs could not succeed in getting the relief of interim injunction merely because they were the co-sharers. There was no averment in the plaint that the portion of the suit land on which the defendant was raising construction had some special value -6- or exclusivity. It also cannot be ignored that the total area of the suit land is more than nine bighas. The plaintiffs have also not been able to controvert the allegation that some of the other co-sharers have already raised the constructions of their houses. 12. In light of above discussion, the order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 40 of 2022 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside and the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 28th May, 2025. (kck)