IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.516 of 2025 Decided on: 30.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ Ranjit Singh and another ……….. petitioners Versus Dalip Kumar ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Una, Camp at Amb, District Una H.P., whereby an appeal preferred against an order dated 1.10.2024 passed in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Amb District, Una has been dismissed and thereby parties had been directed to main status quo qua nature, possession and construction on the suit land. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned judgment. 3. Admittedly in the case at hand, the suit land whereupon the present petitioner (defendant) is seeking to raise 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 construction as per the Jamabandi for the year 2017-18, has been shown to be recorded in joint ownership of the present petitioner (defendant) and the respondent (plaintiff). The said revenue record carries a presumption of truth. 4. Besides the aforesaid, nothing has been placed on record by the present petitioner (defendant) to demonstrate that vide the sale deed by which he had purchased a part of the suit land in the case at hand, he had been put in possession of a specific portion of the suit land whereupon he intends to raise construction. 5. Other than the aforesaid, it is not the case of the petitioner (defendant) that the present respondent (plaintiff) has himself raised construction upon the joint suit land in the case at hand and is now preventing the petitioner (defendant) i.e. the other co-owner from raising construction thereupon. 6. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstance, both the Courts below while adjudicating upon the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC have correctly observed that exclusive possession of the petitioner (defendant) as is being stated in the written statement is a question of fact which can only be decided upon an appreciation of the evidence to be led by the parties. 7. In view of the aforesaid, both the Courts below have correctly ordered preservation, protection of the suit land by 3 ordering status quo be maintained with respect to nature, possession and construction upon the suit land. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the present petition, hence, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge August 30, 2025 tarun