2025:HHC:23870 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 03 of 2024 Decided on: 23.07.2025 Ghanshyam and others … Petitioners Versus Sh. Govind Ram and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Lokesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Respondent No. 3 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that despite best endeavours, no instructions are coming forth from the petitioners nor requisite documents are being provided by the petitioners. 2. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and as respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23870 2/2023 well as the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. in CMA No. 716/2021 in Civil Suit No. 276/21 may kindly be set aside and the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed by the respondents may kindly be dismissed and justice be done.” 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed by learned Trial Court by directing the parties to maintain the status quo over the suit property as well as the judgment passed by learned Appellate Court in appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the order passed by the learned Trial Court in terms whereof learned Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the orders under challenge as well as other documents appended with the petition, this Court does not find any infirmity therein A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that the learned Trial Court ordered the status quo by observing that the suit land is joint in nature and respondent No. 1 therein himself filed application before the revenue authorities for legal partition thereof and now said party could not prejudice the 3 2025:HHC:23870 interest of other co-owners till the partition proceedings are concluded. Learned Trial Court also observed that the present petitioners themselves averred before it that they were not raising any new construction over the suit land as the construction over the suit land has already been raised prior to filing of the filing of the suit, therefore, no harm would be caused to said party, if status quo order is passed in order to preserve the suit land till the disposal of the suit and to avoid further litigation between the parties. These findings have been upheld by learned Appellate Court and learned Appellate Court has also reiterated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, status quo order was required to be passed to preserve the property as the suit land indeed was joint and partition proceedings were pending with regard thereto. 5. During the course of hearing of this petition, it could not be demonstrated that the said findings returned by learned Courts below are perverse. Therefore, as it was the stand of the present petitioners before the learned Trial Court that they were not raising any new construction over the suit land as the construction over the suit land has already been raised prior to the filing of the suit, it is not understood as to how the petitioners are prejudiced by passing of the status quo order by the learned Trial Court, which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, as the orders passed by the learned Courts below, directing the parties to 4 2025:HHC:23870 maintain status quo, cannot be said to be perverse in the light of the facts involved in this case and the findings returned by learned Courts below are clearly borne from the record of the case, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 23, 2025 (narender)