IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.438/2025 Date of Decision: 21st August, 2025. Parveen Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Kamal Singh and Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 10.06.2025, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP in CMA No.07- D/XII/2024, whereby an order rejecting an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the present petitioner, passed by the learned trial Court, has been upheld. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended along with the present petition as well as the impugned order. 3. From a perusal of the judgment, it is clearly evident that both the Courts below have rejected the grant of an interim relief, as prayed for in an application filed under 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the present petitioner on account of balance of convenience lying in favour of the present respondents. The Courts have held that respondent No.6 has taken a loan for raising of the project and restraining him at this stage would cause heavy loss to him. Other than the aforesaid, the mushroom unit has already started operation. The transformer installed is in larger public interest. The laying of the wires erecting of electricity poles is stated to have been completed prior to the institution of the suit in the case at hand. 4. Other than the aforesaid, the suit (Annexure P1), in the case at hand, has been filed seeking the relief of a mandatory injunction qua removal of the electricity transformer, electricity overhead lines laid in the case at hand. Entitlement of the said relief would depend on the conclusion of the trial. 5. The power of the First Appellate Court to interfere in an order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is limited. The parameters for interference in this respect has been laid by the Supreme Court in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, titled Wander Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., decided on 26.04.1990, the relevant extract is reproduced as under:- 3 “…...14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reasses the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reasonably possible on the material. The appellate Court would normally not with justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial Court’s exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadker, J.in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph. (SCR 721). ….These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton ‘…. the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case.” 6. Besides the aforesaid, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un-reasonable conclusion and perversity. 7. Moreover, in a supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final 4 finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181). 8. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated here-in- above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of above terms, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order, therefore, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 21st August, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)