IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.598 of 2024 Decided on 18th August 2025 Sh. Surinder Singh alias SS Multani …Petitioner Versus Smt. Kiran Masson …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Sud, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Banta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been dismissed and so was the fate of the appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and having carefully gone through the orders under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Courts below so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 3. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that whereas the petitioner-plaintiff did not produce any document to establish his possession over the suit land, on the other hand, the respondent-defendant had placed on record the judgment passed in the previous litigation between the parties, wherein the learned Court in Civil Suit No.124-1 of 2010/08/06/03, titled Mrs. Kiran Mason versus Surender Singh and others, in which suit, after considering the Will of the Predecessor-in-Interest of the parties’ alongwith other evidence learned Court had held in favour of the respondents that she was the owner of the suit land and thereafter it restrained the petitioner/plaintiff herein from causing any interference over the suit land. 4. Learned Court also took into consideration the fact that the said judgment was not assailed by the petitioner/plaintiff. On these basis read with other findings returned by the learned Court below, learned Trial Court held that prima facie case was not in favour of the petitioner as record did not demonstrate that he was in possession of the suit property. Learned Court further held that in the backdrop of the facts before it, neither any balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff nor 3 there appeared to be any prima facie case in his favour and if any ad interim was granted it would cause irreparable loss to the respondent before the said Court. 5. In appeal, these findings have been upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 6. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner made a very serious effort to state that in the light of the compromise that was entered into between him and his father, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to deny the interim as was being prayed and that on the basis of mutation only attested in favour of the respondent, interim relief could not have been denied, however, he was not able to demonstrate that the findings returned by the learned Trial Court that nothing was produced on record by the petitioner before the said Court to prove that he was in possession were perverse findings and borne out from the record of the case. 7. It could also not be proved to the contrary that as per the records that there was a judgment in favour of respondent dated 24.04.2012 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.1, in Civil Suit No.124-1 of 2010/08/06/03, titled Mrs. Kiran Mason versus Surender Singh 4 and others (Supra), wherein the present plaintiff stood permanent prohibited by way of injunction from interfering over the suit property in any manner therein. Incidentally, it is not in dispute that the suit property in the said case was the same as is in the present petition. Therefore, in the light of said adjudication by the learned Civil Court which findings have attained finality, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below have erred in denying the interim in favour of the petitioner. 8. Therefore, in the backdrop of the above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. However, it is observed that the observations made by this Court are only for the purpose of the decision of these proceedings and the learned Court below shall decide the Civil Suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the order. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 18, 2025 (Vinod)