IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.725 of 2024 Decided on 13th August, 2025 Bhani Ram …Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. M.C. Jamwal, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the order that was passed by the learned Trial Court in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession and user and construction in respect of path existing upon Khasra No.1263/308/1 has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment under challenge as well as the 2 order passed by the learned Trial Court. 3. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Appellate Court gravely erred in not appreciating that the path in issue was being used by the petitioner and as interference was caused by the respondent in the use thereof, learned Trial Court correctly directed the parties to maintain status quo. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has easementary right to use the path in issue and this extremely important aspect of the matter has also been ignored by the learned Appellate Court while setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is the owner in possession of the land upon which the path is being claimed by the petitioner. He further stated at the bar that when the respondent had met with a fatal accident by the use of force, path was created on his land by the Panchayat. When confronted with the said statement made in the Court that is the respondent admitting the factum of a path being there on the land of the respondent, learned counsel stated that this road in fact was built 3 by the Panchayat upon the private land of the respondent for the sole benefit of the respondent. This Court does not concurs with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. It fails to understand as to why the Panchayat would spend public money for the purpose of the construction of a public path upon private property and that too for the benefit of private individuals. Thus, it is apparent that there appears to be a path on the disputed land which rightly or wrongly has been constructed by the Panchayat and which was being used by the petitioner. 5. In the said backdrop, if one peruses the impugned order, obviously, it appears that the learned Appellate Court has erred in not appreciating this extremely aspect of the matter and more so in the light of the fact that the petitioner had even approached the administrative authorities including Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned in this regard. Further, as the issue involved in the Civil Suit is of the right of way, obviously, if any permanent construction is carried out over the said area by the defendant in the interregnum, it indeed will cause irreparable loss as far the cause of the plaintiff is concerned. On the other hand, maintenance of status quo will not hamper the interest of 4 either of the parties and in case the Civil Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the Civil Suit, obviously, the plaintiff can be levied with heavy cost. 6. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, this petition is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo as was directed by the learned Trial Court during trial and the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court to this extent is set aside. However, it is clarified that the findings that have been returned by this Court in the course of the adjudication on this care are only for the purpose of deciding this petition and the learned Court below shall not be influenced by the same while dealing the Civil Suit. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 13, 2025 (Vinod)