2025:HHC:28914 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 502 of 2025 Decided on : 27.08.2025 Devi Dass. …Petitioner Versus Tula Ram. …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Caveat Petition No. 498 of 2025 Heard and disposed of. CMPMO No. 502 of 2025 2. Notice. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. On his instruction, Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned Senior Counsel, has also put in appearance on behalf of said respondent. 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:28914 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 02.07.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the present petitioner was dismissed as well as judgment dated 21.08.2025, passed by learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the order passed by the learned Trial Court was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 4. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, this Court prima facie is of the view that the order and judgment under challenge call for no interference. 5. In terms of the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the findings returned are to the effect that the petitioner- plaintiff himself had constructed a two storey structure over the joint land and other co-sharer had also raised construction thereupon, to which no objection was raised by the petitioner 3 2025:HHC:28914 and in these circumstances, the respondent cannot be restrained in the mode and manner in which the petitioner- plaintiff wants the Court to restrain the said co-sharer. 6. During the course of the hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated that the said findings returned by the learned Courts below were perverse. Though learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that besides the present construction being carried out by the respondent, he earlier also had raised other constructions over the joint suit land, however, it could not be demonstrated for the satisfaction of the Court that this was done by the respondent in excess of his share over the joint property 7. Be that as it may, in the light of the above observations though this Court is not interfering with the order and judgment under challenge, however, it is observed that the construction that has been or may be carried out by the respondent, shall be at his own risk and peril and in case, the petitioner/plaintiff succeeds in the suit, then no equity shall be claimed by the respondent/defendant. 8. The petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending 4 2025:HHC:28914 miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 27, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)