2025:HHC:9531 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.2/2024. Date of Decision: 07th April, 2025. Karam Singh & Ors .....Appellants. Versus Kehar Singh …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Romesh Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Digvijay, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 2. The appellants, in the case at hand, were the defendants before the learned trial Court. The suit land is a Gairmumkin Abadi. The parties to the lis are co-sharers therein. They have constructed their separate houses over the suit land. 3. From the main road, which connects Banikhet to Tunnuhatti, there exists a pucca passage/path, which leads to the houses of the appellants and the respondent. Except this path, it is alleged that there is no other path. The allegation in the plaint is with respect to blocking of the same by raising forcible construction upon it. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:9531 4. Per contra, on merits, the respondents have categorically stated in the plaint that there is yet another path in the use, which was jointly used by the appellants and the other co-sharers. In the reply filed, it was categorically denied that they have ever blocked path/passage in question. 5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the present appellants reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD. 7. Relief.” 6. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, in the case at hand, the suit filed by the present respondents was decreed. Appeal preferred there against by the defendant i.e. the present appellants, was dismissed. 7. The sole contention urged on behalf of the present appellants is that the suit land, in the case at hand, has not been properly identified, as is the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 3 2025:HHC:9531 CPC. A perusal of the trial Court judgment specifically para 18 thereof categorically makes it evident that the dispute inter se the parties was with respect to raising some overhead construction over the path by the present appellants. In para 20 of the said judgment, it has categorically been stated that the present appellants had not denied the factum of construction but only tried to show that they had raised construction prior to the institution of the suit. The same has been reiterated by the First Appellate Court in para 18 of the impugned judgment. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is evident that the present appellants were aware of the offending construction, which was sought to be got demolished. Hence, the contention being raised is devoid of any merit. 8. Other than the aforesaid, both the Courts have not acted mechanically rather they have discussed the pleadings and evidence before arriving at the findings of fact stated hereinabove. Since the aforesaid findings are based on evidence, therefore, no interference under Section 100 of CPC is called for by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 07th April, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)